At the bottom of the page...
How many drinks would it take?
A 170-pound man could consume approximately four drinks in an hour on an empty stomach before reaching 0.08 limit, according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics cited by MADD.
A 137-pound woman could have three drinks in an hour before reaching 0.08.
How many drinks would it take?
A 170-pound man could consume approximately four drinks in an hour on an empty stomach before reaching 0.08 limit, according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics cited by MADD.
A 137-pound woman could have three drinks in an hour before reaching 0.08.
Red, <<You aren't going to be pulled over unless there is a good reason>>
Not true. First, many states (including Ohio, where I live most of the year) have random check points where people randomly get stopped and tested. Second, someone could get pulled over for something silly like not flashing their blinker when changing lanes, then test .08 and get nailed with all sorts of nasty stuff, when in fact they were not impaired at all.
The Department Of Transportation here in Ohio has already said they are not going along with this and will fight it in court if they have to. Given the recent "pro states rights" rulings in federal courts, that could prove interesting.
I'm certainly not opposed to a measure that would help stop drunk driving. I'm just not convinced that this measure would have any effect whatsoever (especially with no studies to back it up other than MADD oppinions), and I don't like the Federal government making the determination for all the states what a 'safe' BA level should be. That should be up to the states.
Not true. First, many states (including Ohio, where I live most of the year) have random check points where people randomly get stopped and tested. Second, someone could get pulled over for something silly like not flashing their blinker when changing lanes, then test .08 and get nailed with all sorts of nasty stuff, when in fact they were not impaired at all.
The Department Of Transportation here in Ohio has already said they are not going along with this and will fight it in court if they have to. Given the recent "pro states rights" rulings in federal courts, that could prove interesting.
I'm certainly not opposed to a measure that would help stop drunk driving. I'm just not convinced that this measure would have any effect whatsoever (especially with no studies to back it up other than MADD oppinions), and I don't like the Federal government making the determination for all the states what a 'safe' BA level should be. That should be up to the states.
Red, I'd agree with you if there was actually some solid evidence to suggest that lowering the limit would significantly impact the number of accidents. I have not seen any such evidence, someone correct me if I'm wrong. I have not seen any study that shows, for example, that states with the .08 level have fewer accidents than states with the .1 level.
<<If you really have a problem with this then contact who ever you have to in your state and convince them not to accept the Federal Money.>>
I don't have a problem with it, IF (and only if) it's actually really gonna do some good. And yes, ODOT (Ohio dept of trans) has already said they're taking it to court. There's a reason the constitution says the fed gov can't make these kinds of decisions for the states. Witholding money from states is and end-run around it.
<<Well if I'm driving through your state I don't want to be killed by someone who is drunk>>
Absolutely, and neither do I -- but again that comes down to the big question: is there evidence to support this theory?? Also, if you think a certain state is unsafe for one reason or another, you have the option of not going there. Just like with speeding, some states have different speed limits than others. The federal government has no business dictating to states what their speed limits should be, with the threat of witholding money if they don't comply.
<<If you really have a problem with this then contact who ever you have to in your state and convince them not to accept the Federal Money.>>
I don't have a problem with it, IF (and only if) it's actually really gonna do some good. And yes, ODOT (Ohio dept of trans) has already said they're taking it to court. There's a reason the constitution says the fed gov can't make these kinds of decisions for the states. Witholding money from states is and end-run around it.
<<Well if I'm driving through your state I don't want to be killed by someone who is drunk>>
Absolutely, and neither do I -- but again that comes down to the big question: is there evidence to support this theory?? Also, if you think a certain state is unsafe for one reason or another, you have the option of not going there. Just like with speeding, some states have different speed limits than others. The federal government has no business dictating to states what their speed limits should be, with the threat of witholding money if they don't comply.
<<I don't have a problem with it, IF (and only if) it's actually really gonna do some good. And yes, ODOT (Ohio dept of trans) has already said they're taking it to court. There's a reason the constitution says the fed gov can't make these kinds of decisions for the states. Witholding money from states is and end-run around it.>>
Well then whoever in your ODOT was on TV saying that was talking out their butt. The feds can tie any condition to federal money they want. Federal grants to the states are NOT entitlements, they aren't entitled to any of the money and the federal goverment can tie absolutely any standard or requirement to any of the money it sees fit. If one of your local ODOT representatives said any such thing about a lawsuit they were campaigning. They will not win in any court of law and it's even doubtfull that the feds would let them sue. (and yes you must have permission to sue the federal government)
Well then whoever in your ODOT was on TV saying that was talking out their butt. The feds can tie any condition to federal money they want. Federal grants to the states are NOT entitlements, they aren't entitled to any of the money and the federal goverment can tie absolutely any standard or requirement to any of the money it sees fit. If one of your local ODOT representatives said any such thing about a lawsuit they were campaigning. They will not win in any court of law and it's even doubtfull that the feds would let them sue. (and yes you must have permission to sue the federal government)
rahvin, actually, there are several such issues pending now in federal court -- not over the alcohol thing, but over other such cases where the government has madated certain things to the states.
Here's a couple of examples. They are not about the same topic, but they are cases that show that the supreme court has been very much on the side of states rights in the past 3 years, and has been a lot more hesitant to allow any federal laws or mandates that interfere with states's rights.
California Labor law
California Civil rights laws versus federal laws.
Surpeme court broadens states rights considerably, endangering copyright claims.
Courts rule fed gov can't force states not to sell drivers license data after SC sues fed gov.
These are by no means great sources of information, I'm just illustrating a point.
ODOT has said they will fight it in court, and I don't know on what grounds they plan to do it and in what jurisdiction, I'm not a lawyer
.
Here's a couple of examples. They are not about the same topic, but they are cases that show that the supreme court has been very much on the side of states rights in the past 3 years, and has been a lot more hesitant to allow any federal laws or mandates that interfere with states's rights.
California Labor law
California Civil rights laws versus federal laws.
Surpeme court broadens states rights considerably, endangering copyright claims.
Courts rule fed gov can't force states not to sell drivers license data after SC sues fed gov.
These are by no means great sources of information, I'm just illustrating a point.
ODOT has said they will fight it in court, and I don't know on what grounds they plan to do it and in what jurisdiction, I'm not a lawyer
.maybe I'm just inflexible, but I am of the opinion that even just ONE drink (.03 BAC limit) impares your driving ability enough to make me not want you on the road. However, this would never pass Congress in a million years.
Anyway, drinking and driving is just moronic anyway. It's not even a victimless crime, like someone smoking pot in their room or something; if you get behind the wheel when you are impared, you could KILL someone.
/me shivers.
-inq
Anyway, drinking and driving is just moronic anyway. It's not even a victimless crime, like someone smoking pot in their room or something; if you get behind the wheel when you are impared, you could KILL someone.
/me shivers.
-inq
Under the law, approved earlier this month by Congress as part of national transportation funding, states are required to adopt a .08 blood-alcohol level as the legal threshold for drunken driving by 2007 at the latest.
Don't worry, some of you guys can still drink, drive, and kill others for several more years.
Don't worry, some of you guys can still drink, drive, and kill others for several more years.
inquis and PG, having a drink and being impaired are NOT the same thing. I personally don't drink (never have, as I have seen up close the effects of what alcoholism can do to a family), but I know for certain that someone having one drink will not make them any more dangerous on the road than someone changing the dial on their car radio.
We need to seriously crack down on people that drive while impaired or intoxicated, but cracking down on people that might have had a drink but are not impaired doesn't help do that, at least not in my oppinion.
We need to seriously crack down on people that drive while impaired or intoxicated, but cracking down on people that might have had a drink but are not impaired doesn't help do that, at least not in my oppinion.
I'm glad that my bar of choice is within walking distance of my house. If I have too much, I'll walk home and get the truck the next day.
All the bawl babies out there: SHUT THE HELL UP!!
I am a mother of four children. Every single day they are being driven somewhere. And every arrest of a drunk driver is one less person I have to worry about taking my babies' lives because they were too selfish to hand over their keys.
Here, the limit has been .08 for five years now. However, our state didn't just lower the limit, it set and enforces stricter penalties. Since doing this, the number of arrests for DUI has significacantly increased, while deaths by drunk drivers have decreased. So, lower limit + strict penalties + strict enforcement = less murderers on the streets = less deaths
*whine* "Oh, but I could get arrested for driving after only one drink! It isn't fair!" *whine*
No, a knock on the door at three in the morning by a cop telling you your child is dead isn't fair!
If you don't want to get arrested, then don't do anything wrong!
I am a mother of four children. Every single day they are being driven somewhere. And every arrest of a drunk driver is one less person I have to worry about taking my babies' lives because they were too selfish to hand over their keys.
Here, the limit has been .08 for five years now. However, our state didn't just lower the limit, it set and enforces stricter penalties. Since doing this, the number of arrests for DUI has significacantly increased, while deaths by drunk drivers have decreased. So, lower limit + strict penalties + strict enforcement = less murderers on the streets = less deaths
*whine* "Oh, but I could get arrested for driving after only one drink! It isn't fair!" *whine*
No, a knock on the door at three in the morning by a cop telling you your child is dead isn't fair!
If you don't want to get arrested, then don't do anything wrong!
Ok, rant's over. It's just a really big issue with me. In NH, a group of people actually tried to challenge the state constitutionality of allowing police to set up sobriety check points without disclosing the locations to the press. They called it "entrapment" and wanted police to disclose the locations to allow those who wanted to avoid the check points to plan an alternate route. Give me a break.
Seriously, though, the truth is, alcohol, any amount, impaires you, your judgement, and your ability to assess your own sobriety.
Seriously, though, the truth is, alcohol, any amount, impaires you, your judgement, and your ability to assess your own sobriety.
<...When my life is at stake, and you're behind the wheel on the same road as me, I want you to be AS SOBER AS POSSIBLE.....>
I also think there should be a minimum IQ test, too: 120+, or you don't drive.
(I imagine the complainers are all <120 IQ)
I also think there should be a minimum IQ test, too: 120+, or you don't drive.
(I imagine the complainers are all <120 IQ)
I think we should enforce the rules we already have.. I would venture to guess that a VERY high percentage of people who kill others in drunk driving accidents are WAY over the .08 limit.. Probably in the .2 to .3 range.. So if you liberals wanted to do something other than FEEL GOOD about yourself and passing laws such as this, maybe you should consider having your courts ENFORCE THE LAWS CURRENTLY IN PLACE. You could make having a sip of alcohol and driving illegal, it still won't make any difference. Those who kill will still drive..
I recently heard on the news here in Wisconsin that some guy had been arrested for this 12th!!!! DWI... whats the problem there? Do you think .10 versus .08 will make any difference? I doubt it.. but I bet it makes you people feel a lot better.. Personally, I don't care.. if I go out drinking either I or my wife don't drink and the one that doesn't drives. This will make absolutely no difference, and thus its stupid... arrest the people who are the problem... thats the solution.
I recently heard on the news here in Wisconsin that some guy had been arrested for this 12th!!!! DWI... whats the problem there? Do you think .10 versus .08 will make any difference? I doubt it.. but I bet it makes you people feel a lot better.. Personally, I don't care.. if I go out drinking either I or my wife don't drink and the one that doesn't drives. This will make absolutely no difference, and thus its stupid... arrest the people who are the problem... thats the solution.
good law, you shouldnt drink anything anyways. kills brain cells, can cause breast cancer... make you fat
<<Here's a couple of examples. They are not about the same topic, but they are cases that show that the supreme court has been very much on the side of states rights in the past 3 years, and has been a lot more hesitant to allow any federal laws or mandates that interfere with states's rights.>>
Tagej,
If you did the research on those cases you would relize those have no relation to this case. As I said before the Federal government isn't telling the states what to do, they are saying if you want a grant of money from us you will do it our way. There is a difference and every court case you listed involved them telling a state what to do, NOT attaching a condition for money. There have been MANY conditions attached to federal highway money since the system was constructed by Eisenhower. The Federal speedlimit is probably the one you would be most familiar with, the congress dropped that requirement a couple years ago because the majority of the states stopped getting the money because they gave up on enforcement. The states AREN'T mandated to enforce or abide by this requirement, but if they don't they won't get federal highway money. If your state is STUPID enough to take it to court they will LOSE.
Tagej,
If you did the research on those cases you would relize those have no relation to this case. As I said before the Federal government isn't telling the states what to do, they are saying if you want a grant of money from us you will do it our way. There is a difference and every court case you listed involved them telling a state what to do, NOT attaching a condition for money. There have been MANY conditions attached to federal highway money since the system was constructed by Eisenhower. The Federal speedlimit is probably the one you would be most familiar with, the congress dropped that requirement a couple years ago because the majority of the states stopped getting the money because they gave up on enforcement. The states AREN'T mandated to enforce or abide by this requirement, but if they don't they won't get federal highway money. If your state is STUPID enough to take it to court they will LOSE.
rahvin:
The Federal Government did not drop the speed limit requirements for federal funding. In fact, the requirements were just changed a few years ago to allow implementation of a 65mph speed limit when a driver is x miles outside of areas with a population over x. (Forgot the exact numbers, hence the "x" values.)
The Federal Government did not drop the speed limit requirements for federal funding. In fact, the requirements were just changed a few years ago to allow implementation of a 65mph speed limit when a driver is x miles outside of areas with a population over x. (Forgot the exact numbers, hence the "x" values.)
First, any citizen or state has the right to challenge a law they consider unconstitutional, etc. Therefore, a state can challenge a law passed by the President and Congress. NC had the .08 limit before this was even passed, so it really doesn't harm the citizens in this state. However, some states have higher limits, and the Fed's should not put conditions on Federal money. The citizens of that state also contributed taxes to help pave roads, etc. Therefore, they have a right to collect the money for the roads in their state. If the Fed's don't want to give the money to them then they need to lower the taxes for the citizens of that state. There are also other laws that this law is breaking, which will be challenged in court.
*I'm not saying the law is bad, but the act of passing it, and then instituting a condition in which YOUR MONEY will be given to the states to provide money for YOUR roads is completely wrong.
*I know you guys think this law is great, but put that aside for a minute, and think about how much control you are giving the Federal Government. Do you really want the Fed's to be able to blackmail the states in this way? I don't. I believe in state and federal rights, but there needs to be a separation, so one is not blackmailing the other for their own agenda. Consider the CONTROL issue before you support what the government did yesterday.
*I'm not saying the law is bad, but the act of passing it, and then instituting a condition in which YOUR MONEY will be given to the states to provide money for YOUR roads is completely wrong.
*I know you guys think this law is great, but put that aside for a minute, and think about how much control you are giving the Federal Government. Do you really want the Fed's to be able to blackmail the states in this way? I don't. I believe in state and federal rights, but there needs to be a separation, so one is not blackmailing the other for their own agenda. Consider the CONTROL issue before you support what the government did yesterday.
I think the few in here who complain about state versus Federal control and then also plan to vote for Jr Bush are past the .08 limit already!
Jr Bush wants a Federal law banning at least some types of abortions. Jr also wants to direct Federal funding to religious groups to care for the poor. Regardless of what your position is on these issues, they all represent areas where the Feds will take control from the states. Even Jr Bush's education plan makes Federal funds contingent on schools performing well on achievement tests. Sounds like a "string attached" if you ask me.
Perhaps people might want to consider that there are times when Federal limits are needed. It is far too simplistic to simply rant about state versus Federal control across the board.
Jr Bush wants a Federal law banning at least some types of abortions. Jr also wants to direct Federal funding to religious groups to care for the poor. Regardless of what your position is on these issues, they all represent areas where the Feds will take control from the states. Even Jr Bush's education plan makes Federal funds contingent on schools performing well on achievement tests. Sounds like a "string attached" if you ask me.
Perhaps people might want to consider that there are times when Federal limits are needed. It is far too simplistic to simply rant about state versus Federal control across the board.
These funds belong to the people! Therefore, the Feds should not put limits on the highway money. People pay taxes to have roads paved. Does this mean that since those people are not accepting the funds that they don't have to pay them? It seems only fair!! Maybe they choose to take the road tax money and pay it to the state instead of the gov. Maybe the people should put conditions on which they pay taxes!
I am sure no one will like my view. I think that a person who is cought drinking and driving and it is there first offense of any kind, should simply get off with a fine and loss of driving rights for one year. I do not think there should be any jail time. Everyone is entitled to a mistake. Do you realize that far more people are killed due to people driving fatigued. What is next, sending people that fall asleep behind the wheel to jail.
If I was to find out my wife or any other loved one was killed by a drunk driver I would definitley be devistated. However, if this was a first major offense of any type, I do not think that person should be charged with anything other than a DUI. I totally disagree with first time offenders of any type getting charged with manslaughter for making one mistake such as drinking and driving.
The fact is alcohol is leagal if you are over 21. So a person of great values and nothing on his record could slip and and have a few drinks. After these few drinks he loses his thought process. He then, without thinking, drives home and kills someone. THere is no way this person should be held accountable for that death......bottomline. If this is the case then a person that stayed up all night and knew they were tired, left for work and killed someone on the way should also be held accountable. Now if this person had previous convictions such as assault, DUI,public drunk, drug possesion, etc., then it wasn't simply a mistake but rather a pattern.
No flaming please..........jsut stating my view.
If I was to find out my wife or any other loved one was killed by a drunk driver I would definitley be devistated. However, if this was a first major offense of any type, I do not think that person should be charged with anything other than a DUI. I totally disagree with first time offenders of any type getting charged with manslaughter for making one mistake such as drinking and driving.
The fact is alcohol is leagal if you are over 21. So a person of great values and nothing on his record could slip and and have a few drinks. After these few drinks he loses his thought process. He then, without thinking, drives home and kills someone. THere is no way this person should be held accountable for that death......bottomline. If this is the case then a person that stayed up all night and knew they were tired, left for work and killed someone on the way should also be held accountable. Now if this person had previous convictions such as assault, DUI,public drunk, drug possesion, etc., then it wasn't simply a mistake but rather a pattern.
No flaming please..........jsut stating my view.
Is there *ANY* evidence out there that lowering this limit across the board will make a significant difference in alcohol related accidents? I don't know one way or the other.... As with any law, you have to balance the benefits of the law with the consequences. In this case the negative consequences are that some 'innocent' (in other words, people who are not impaired) drivers will get nailed. The positive (fewer alcohol related traffic deaths) has to balance out.... If indeed lives are saved with this law, there is no question that the benefits outweigh the costs. The question is, do we know that lowering the rate has a significant impact on accident rates? I don't have my mind made up one way or the other on this law, it depends on whether it really has the effect on alcohol related accidents that it's proponents tout.
MrsSkyWalker:<<All the bawl babies out there: SHUT THE HELL UP!!>>
Sounds very mature for a mother of four... someone disagrees with your point of view, and they need to "shut the hell up". Very bright..... You just lost all credibility right there, dolt.
<<In NH, a group of people actually tried to challenge the state constitutionality of allowing police to set up sobriety check points without disclosing the locations to the press. They called it "entrapment" and wanted police to disclose the locations to allow those who wanted to avoid the check points to plan an alternate route. Give me a break.>>
First, get off your high horse. I know at least three states where people challenged this exact same thing and the courts AGREED that indeed it was entrapment. In Ohio for example, the cops have to post a notice in the newspaper a week before they put up designated 'check points'.
Rahvin: I just randomly picked those cases because they illustrate the court's recent tendency towards siding with state rights on many issues. They don't specifically address this issue. Think about it, if the fed can use federal funds as 'punishment' for non-compliance with their 'suggestions', what's to prevent them from make ANY demand from a state in return for federal monies?? So if the fed says all states now need to make the legal drinking age 35, otherwise you lose all federal funding -- that's ok?? Nope, that's simply a way around the constitutional limits on the authority of the federal gov.
<<Since doing this, the number of arrests for DUI has significacantly increased, while deaths by drunk drivers have decreased. So, lower limit + strict penalties + strict enforcement = less murderers on the streets = less deaths>>
I'm glad you're not a researcher. I'm sure stricter enforcement of the laws does make the roads safer. That's not in question. The question is, does lowering the rate from .1 to .08 have a significant impact? You have to isolate causal factors to be able to study them.
This issue is a lot like the gun control debate. The theory is that more gun laws will have a real influence in the reduction of gun crime. If that is so, then by all means, add more laws. However, since it hasn't been shown to be true at all (states with more strict gun laws don't have less violent crime), simply adding more gun laws and restrictions is not the answer (criminals get the guns anyway). Strongly enforcing existing laws is.
MrsSkyWalker:<<All the bawl babies out there: SHUT THE HELL UP!!>>
Sounds very mature for a mother of four... someone disagrees with your point of view, and they need to "shut the hell up". Very bright..... You just lost all credibility right there, dolt.
<<In NH, a group of people actually tried to challenge the state constitutionality of allowing police to set up sobriety check points without disclosing the locations to the press. They called it "entrapment" and wanted police to disclose the locations to allow those who wanted to avoid the check points to plan an alternate route. Give me a break.>>
First, get off your high horse. I know at least three states where people challenged this exact same thing and the courts AGREED that indeed it was entrapment. In Ohio for example, the cops have to post a notice in the newspaper a week before they put up designated 'check points'.
Rahvin: I just randomly picked those cases because they illustrate the court's recent tendency towards siding with state rights on many issues. They don't specifically address this issue. Think about it, if the fed can use federal funds as 'punishment' for non-compliance with their 'suggestions', what's to prevent them from make ANY demand from a state in return for federal monies?? So if the fed says all states now need to make the legal drinking age 35, otherwise you lose all federal funding -- that's ok?? Nope, that's simply a way around the constitutional limits on the authority of the federal gov.
<<Since doing this, the number of arrests for DUI has significacantly increased, while deaths by drunk drivers have decreased. So, lower limit + strict penalties + strict enforcement = less murderers on the streets = less deaths>>
I'm glad you're not a researcher. I'm sure stricter enforcement of the laws does make the roads safer. That's not in question. The question is, does lowering the rate from .1 to .08 have a significant impact? You have to isolate causal factors to be able to study them.
This issue is a lot like the gun control debate. The theory is that more gun laws will have a real influence in the reduction of gun crime. If that is so, then by all means, add more laws. However, since it hasn't been shown to be true at all (states with more strict gun laws don't have less violent crime), simply adding more gun laws and restrictions is not the answer (criminals get the guns anyway). Strongly enforcing existing laws is.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
slap
Its impossible to pull people over and test levels of fatigue.
You said after a few drinks you lose your thought processes, so if that is the case why would punishing a person at all ever help? No, people need to be held responsible. Some people get stupid when they drink; they should not drink. I can get so sh*t-faced I can't even see (have twice, don't care for it ever again) and I still would not drive a car. People are _not_ entitled to a mistake when they are massively putting other's lives at risk. That single mistake can kill a family.
I didn't want to flame but THere is no way this person should be held accountable for that death......bottomline. you are pulling my leg aren't you? So, does this mean you think everyone shoudl be allowed to drink while drunk until they are first caught, then smarten up? Absolutely F**king ridiculous. I agree that person should not be held as accountable as somebody who puts a gun to a victim's head, because liqour does cloud one's mind to an extent and this was an accident...but if a person is too stupid to control themselves while drinking adequately (ie, not driving), then they should not drink. THAT is the bottom line.
Its impossible to pull people over and test levels of fatigue.
You said after a few drinks you lose your thought processes, so if that is the case why would punishing a person at all ever help? No, people need to be held responsible. Some people get stupid when they drink; they should not drink. I can get so sh*t-faced I can't even see (have twice, don't care for it ever again) and I still would not drive a car. People are _not_ entitled to a mistake when they are massively putting other's lives at risk. That single mistake can kill a family.
I didn't want to flame but THere is no way this person should be held accountable for that death......bottomline. you are pulling my leg aren't you? So, does this mean you think everyone shoudl be allowed to drink while drunk until they are first caught, then smarten up? Absolutely F**king ridiculous. I agree that person should not be held as accountable as somebody who puts a gun to a victim's head, because liqour does cloud one's mind to an extent and this was an accident...but if a person is too stupid to control themselves while drinking adequately (ie, not driving), then they should not drink. THAT is the bottom line.
Red, <<These states do not have to accept these funds. It's like telling somebody on welfare that they have to look for work if they want financial help. If they choose not to then that's fine, but we aren't going to give them any money. >>
That's fine, but there's one major difference. People in every state are forced to pay money to the fed. gov. Then, if the state doesn't do things the way the fed wants them to, the fed witholds monies, yet the state still has to continue paying monies to the fed. Can the state residents stop paying money to the federal government if the federal government no longer provides funds for projects in that state??
That's fine, but there's one major difference. People in every state are forced to pay money to the fed. gov. Then, if the state doesn't do things the way the fed wants them to, the fed witholds monies, yet the state still has to continue paying monies to the fed. Can the state residents stop paying money to the federal government if the federal government no longer provides funds for projects in that state??
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter