Slashdot Mirror

Building out a standard charging network at existing gas stations is not that difficult ...

You know not of what you speak. Building up a slow AC charge setup would not be that difficult, except for the little problem of having to leave your car at a gas station for 18 hours to charge it.

Building up a DC fast charging network at existing gas stations is technically infeasible because of the space involved. A typical DC fast charging setup requires enough space to park about 14 cars, to serve only 10. It is best suited for companies with large parking lots, like Target or Wal-Mart, not gas stations, which never (+/- some small margin of error) have enough space for even two or three DC fast chargers, much less enough to be practical without large amounts of Internet-based coordination of which cars go to which gas stations.

A DC fast charge needs 480 - 600V 120 amp circuit. As for space requirements, malls seem to easily install one or two in parking garages, which do not have large space availability for the installation, since they are siting them on higher levels of a parking garage, and enough to meet ADA requirements. Yes, the older 4 pump station/quickmart may be space limited; if you look at may of the newer service stations, they have plenty of equivalent parking space (handicapped parking space sized) to install 4 or 5 fast chargers, and even more if it is a car/truck stop site; most of which are along interstates where most long distance travel will occur. The challenge will be the electric infrastructure, both capacity at the location and grid impact. Utilities will need to be involved with build-outs to ensure grid stability. I refer you to: http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/dee...

Police usually report a suicide as an accident, both to save the feelings of the family members and to help them avoid difficulty collecting on any life insurance. (Suicide voids a life insurance policy, so the family may both lose a loved one and be impoverished if the police or coroner's report mentions the "s" word in the cause-of-death slot.)

You should stop pretending like you know what you're talking about.

The federal 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) prohibits discrimination against a person covered by a group health insurance policy based on health factors (29 USC 1182). Interim final regulations interpreting the law specifies that a health insurance plan cannot exclude coverage for an injury resulting from a medical condition, whether physical or mental, if it is an injury the policy would otherwise cover (26 C.F.R. 54.9802-1T(b)(2)(iii)).

Self-inflicted injuries, such as injuries resulting from attempted suicide, are presumed to be the result of a mental illness, such as depression, and therefore coverage for treatment of self-inflicted injuries cannot be excluded, according to Insurance Department staff. The only exception is if the person is covered by an individual policy that excludes coverage for pre-existing conditions and the person had a prior history of mental illness. (For more information on HIPAA and prior medical conditions, see the enclosed OLR report, 2003-R-0778.)

How can anyone with any intelligence protest voter ID laws?

Because people with intelligence realize that oppressive manifestations of even the most genuine and benign laws exist.

If you weren't a dishonest liar, you're realize that, and account for it, instead of trying to disingenuously dismiss any challenges at all.

Voting is a PRIVILEGE in the USA reserved only for citizens.

Technically no, there are many cases where residents or property owners are allowed to vote. Regardless of citizenship.

California allowing anyone obtaining a driver's license to register to vote without verification of eligibility could, in theory, allow non-citizens (including illegals, since they don't check that when issuing a driver's license either) to register to vote.

We need stricter voter ID laws.

Nope. You need some regard for the truth, as what you're saying about California is a malicious lie.

Really, what is the purpose of making such easily disproven lies?

Why do you repeat such things? Are you a mindless shill, or are you intent on making Republicans look bad? Which is it?

According to the US government money is speech. So unlimited free speech makes it legal to pay someone to kill someone else.

Sorry, non-sequitur. Paying somebody to commit a crime is still a crime. Nothing has changed that.

And, although nobody seems to care about details, the Supreme Court decision in the "Citizens United" case at no point stated "money is speech." That's a popular simplification that is, in fact, a glib overgeneralization. A good summary of what the decision actually concluded is here: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rp...

It wouldn't be illegal under FCC in the US, but it's still endangering people by blocking calls to emergency services. It shouldn't necessarily be legal.

However, it seems to be only covered by state law - and there are several that criminalize active blocking of emergency calls:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rp...

Citation is not relevant. As I read it, and no I'm not a lawyer, the referenced laws don't come into play until a call is begun. Thus, if you can't start the call, the law is not broken.

The only real question is when will the states wise up and include the active or passive blocking of cell signals, followed by how long until the SCOTUS gets involved .

It wouldn't be illegal under FCC in the US, but it's still endangering people by blocking calls to emergency services. It shouldn't necessarily be legal.

However, it seems to be only covered by state law - and there are several that criminalize active blocking of emergency calls:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rp...

Those state laws only cover active blocking of emergency calls, not passive blocking of any calls. Among other items irrelevant to the current topic, they criminalize "interruption of an emergency call" or "refusal to yield a party line or public pay phone" in emergencies.

There are several states that make interfering with calls to emergency services a crime:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rp...

And that's cellular or not. Just because the FCC rules (no, not FTC) only say you can't jam the signal - that's not the final word.

It wouldn't be illegal under FCC in the US, but it's still endangering people by blocking calls to emergency services. It shouldn't necessarily be legal.

However, it seems to be only covered by state law - and there are several that criminalize active blocking of emergency calls:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rp...

There sure as shit should be a fully automated and publicly available diff system for all legislation, Federal and State. Ideally in a normalized format, but that's probably a pipe dream

Connecticut does a somewhat job when they publish the HTML text of the bills, but this is only after they are signed and become park of the statutes

As an example https://www.cga.ct.gov/current...: All the Public Acts that were proposed and then signed into law amending this statute are in the tan color, some background history and the changes made are in purple, citations in case law and other statutes are in red.

It's better than nothing but it's not hyperlinked or graphed or anything fancy to actually understand how each thing relates to the rest.

> I'm pretty sure most dashslot readers have not even been accused of "molesting five children, including his own sisters",

Given the accusations and abuse heaped on various software project leaders or contributors, it's more common than you may realize.

Also, I'm afraid that the standards for what constitutes "molesting children" vary from culture to culture, and even from state to state. There are cultures where clitorectomy, which I would certainly classify as sexual abuse of children, is considered part of proper upbringing. Looking at https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/ol... for rape statutes, the first state listed considers it a felony for an 18 year old to have sex with a 15 year old.

Even marriage among siblings has occurred in small communities, and among royalty, throughout history. And sexual play among siblings is surprisingly common among humans and other mammals. This doesn't mean that I, for one, recommend it. But by itself, without violence or threats or other harassment, it should not turn the recipient of sexual molestation into an automatic object of lifelong pity.

Looks like I missed North Dakota, Hawaii, Arizona, New Mexico, Connecticut and one from Minnesota, that's just mentioned in their journal.

Aside from the sheer difficulty of litigating against a financial institution(If it is possible for your sister to have signed away her soul to mandatory binding arbitration in the venue of the bank's choice, those terms were probably included in at least one part of the fine print, probably several), there may not be much to go on. Not all states even require disclosure of a customer data breach, much less any particular action, standard of care, or other inconvenience.

You might get somewhere if the bank didn't comply with Connecticut's data breach notification laws; but even that probably won't get you as far as you might want, though it might make some lower mid level peon more likely to comp her a year of credit monitoring just to go away. Any actually-toothy penalties, or not using absurdly insecure channels, though, not so much.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/LIB/dot/documents/dresearch/JHR_09-321_JH_04-6.pdf

Drivers pick a speed based on how the road is built

Yes, the study you cite shows that. But note that the chosen speed is only related to how the road is perceived (visual cues), not to its actual safety.

not the speed limit.

The study you cite does not show that, and it would be absurd to assume that drivers don't react to speed limits at all. Maybe you misinterpreted the part of the abstract where it says that the visual cues are independent of the speed limit.

Travelling above the speed limit has no correlation or often an inverse correlation with accidents.

[Citation needed]

Try Google you twit

[Citation still needed]

The question of interpretation is not what it would mean to you if you buddy said it, but what it meant to the people who wrote it.

You asked me, what I think it meant. My friends would've meant the same thing as the founders did — I certainly think so.

Whether to extend to TV or internet is a question of hermeneutics not interpretation

How neat of you to completely skip everything else I wrote — about only petitioning the government being protected by the 1st Amendment, and only if the petition is for redress of grievances...

If the First Amendment really does protect the right to sell (adult) pornography (a rather obvious perversion of the Founder's intentions — if we really cared about them), the Second ought to protect owning and bearing of not only brass-knuckles and swords, but rocket-launchers and tanks — and certainly "assault" rifles of any magazine-capacity...

He argues for less fidelity to it [the Constitution -mi].

Yea, sure. More like zero fidelity — the entire piece is titled: "Let's give up on the Constitution"...

The first amendment has much more limited application in semi-private environments.

What has changed to these limits since the 60-ies? Not the laws... It is just the Illiberals of the past, who enjoyed the Amendment's protections back then (see Tinker v. Des Moines of 1969, for one example — that it was about school rather than college is immaterial here), have grown-up, taken the comfortable (semi)-government jobs, and no longer recognize the Amendment as applicable in the same circumstances.

They can not give consent, but most laws are written to where one person has to be either over a certain age or X years older. Check out the actual laws - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olr....

I am not defending child porn at all. I am saying that prosecuting someone for taking pictures of themselves nude is not helpful to anyone. If it is legal to see, it should be legal to photograph. If I take a picture of my own penis, why would I be charged with creating pornography? It's mine, I can see it, why can't I take a picture of it? Yes, if I send it out to minors or something, that is different, but in a case like this, the only thing we know for sure is that she took a picture of herself naked. There is no reason that should be against the law.

Check out the actual laws - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olr...

Almost every laws specifies that one person must be over a certain age for the law to apply. There are some exceptions, but in general the laws are written that statutory rape is having sex with someone under X age when the perpetrator is either over X age or X years older.

So yes, it would be legal for 2 minors to have sex in most cases.

Young black workers were affected by many factors. An "anti acting white culture", poverty left over from slavery, systemic racism in hiring, promotion, and housing.. and most significantly for the last two generations has been the "drug war".

In some states, almost ALL people incarcerated for drug crimes are black- yet the majority of people committing drug crimes are white. Blacks are more likely to be stopped-- then to be searched when stopped- then to be a arrested if something is found- then to be convicted when tried- and finally to be sentenced to much longer sentences when convicted.

Quote:
According to the Sentencing Project's website, the rate of incarceration for white Connecticut residents in 2005 was 211 per 100,000 people; for black residents it was 2,532 per 100,000. The Sentencing Project reports that the national incarceration rate for whites in 2005 was 412 per 100,000, and the rate for blacks was 2,290 per 100,000 people.

Also according to the Sentencing Project's web site, in seven states (Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota) the black to white incarceration ratio is greater than 10 to one.

1. about one in every 33 black men was a sentenced prisoner and the rate for white men was about one in every 205, for Hispanic men about one in every 79; and

2. black men represented the largest proportion of sentenced male inmates at yearend 2006 (38%); white men made up 34%; and Hispanic men, 21%.

More reading here...
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt...

http://www.americanprogress.or...

http://socialistworker.org/blo...

(1) It does not matter what you or your politicians think, the real measure is the insurance industry. At the summit, a spokesperson for a large insurance company pointed out that wind insurance in Florida is now like flood insurance. Too big for insurance companies to cover (because they are not too big to fail), so the government is forcing coverage (because the government IS too big to fail (Hurrican Windstorm Insurance). Uhm, ignore Greece and Iceland, please).

Then (2) there is no silver bullet. Removing all the cars or removing all the coal fired power plants (worldwide) won't solve the problem. We need "silver buckshot" hitting multiple targets.

I dont think you understand how cookies work:

Spare me the condescension, this is slashdot, nobody reads it without knowing how cookies work.

But of course your consent was implicit in choosing to visit that URL and request resources from that server; its your fault if you walk into a store and then complain that you're now on their CCTV because you chose to visit that store and play by their rules.

There's no such thing as an implicit consent. A web site can't force me to buy an encyclopaedia because I visited their URL. That's because entering a URL doesn't imply buying encyclopaedias, or selling your own private information. Stores have notices that tell you there's CCTV installed, and most importantly, they won't share tapes with your face, name and timestamp with all the other stores, and in particular they won't sell that information.

A lot of browsers (including IE starting with v6) allow you to disable cookies, or prompt you when they are requested. If this actually mattered to you, you could easily be notified when google cookies are "aimed" at your computer, and deny them, and then refuse to visit those sites.

Why, there are lots of legitimate uses for cookies beyond spying my life. I can't be forced to renounce them because some commercial company wants to sell my personal information without my consent.

And regarding the "multiple countries fined google", the US did not.

http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=520518&A=2341 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/16/net-us-google-fine-idUSBRE83F00Q20120416 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/aug/09/google-record-fine-ftc-safari

Find me a conviction for it in the US, otherwise really not interested in what a german court had to say about google.

Not only Germany. The list of countries that fined Google is much longer. Considering that the federal government used Google (and Yahoo, and Facebook, and whomever else) to spy their own citizen and those of the rest of the world, it's no wonder that they couldn't make a big fuss about privacy. Apparently the States are more sensitive about their citizens' privacy.

Your computer is already receiving the traffic, all google did was record it.

I'm certain that Google made no use of the accidentally collected data. The problem is, that when you're collecting large amounts of private data from the whole world, and gathering that information into a single place, you have to be extremely careful about what you do with that much data, and whose hands you put that data in.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/SUM/2010SUM00191-R02HB-05533-SUM.htm

"The felony offense of child pornography is divided into three degrees, depending on the number of visual images that the defendant knowingly possesses. The offenses range from a class B to a class D felony."

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0192.htm

Class B felony - 1 to 20 years up to $15,000

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/SUM/2010SUM00191-R02HB-05533-SUM.htm

"The felony offense of child pornography is divided into three degrees, depending on the number of visual images that the defendant knowingly possesses. The offenses range from a class B to a class D felony."

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0192.htm

Class B felony - 1 to 20 years up to $15,000

Inconvenient Party affiliation omitted, twice in one day.

Back here we have a Democrat state senator Toni Harp from Connecticut trying to "Ban Kids From Using Arcade Guns." Now we have Democrat state senator Ira Silverstein of Illinois with another statist gem.

Could we please stop this game? When we're raging about Republicans there is no hesitation qualifying names with parties. I know it's inconvenient that all bad government isn't the fault of fundies, but pretending statists aren't a problem isn't helpful behavior.

Um... what does the NRA have to do with a bill sponsored by a Democratic Congressperson?

Once again, you can assume you're reading about a Democrat because the party affiliation is omitted from the story. And yes, state senator party affiliation is important; the legislature is controlled by the majority party.

It's just so darned inconvenient.

Okay, here's a simple one for the editors to fix:
Connecticut is the correct spelling, not Conneticut
.
http://www.ct.gov/ -- official Connecticut state government portal
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut -- wikipedia link
.
Let's see how long it takes to fix it or continue to ignore it. It's 9:45 am PST now. Start counting.

The Colt AR-15 as it is generally known is basically the civilian version of the M16. This means semi-auto only, not fully automatic or burst mode. By exact definition, "assault rifles" are fully automatic rifles such as the M16, which are generally not obtainable by most US citizens. Therefore, not an assault rifle.

Furthermore, the "AR-15" by name is typically banned in state-level "assault weapons" bans, including Connecticut. However, many different manufacturers make similar rifles often with interchangeable parts. Since these are sold under different model names, they are not explicitly covered in these bans. The shooter in this case had an XM-15 made by Bushmaster, which actually is more like the military M4 rifle.
http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm

Therefore, although she was indeed physically helpless in the ordinary sense of the term, she was not physically helpless for purposes of the statute.), and State v. Bucknell, 144 Wn. App. 524, 529â"30, 183 P.3d 1078 (2008)

.

There also seems to be a bizarre point about whether or not the victim had been taught any sexual information in the sense that if they didn't know about it how could they deny consent for it? Would that be the break that would allow the rape of children who had not yet been taught the facts of life and/or were brought up to respect authority?

Here's the oath for voire dire in California.

VOIR DIRE.
            You solemnly swear or solemnly and sincerely affirm, as the case may be, that you will answer truthfully all questions that you are asked, none of which will be about the merits of the case for which the jury is being selected; so help you God or upon penalty of perjury.

Would you like me to look up "lie of omission" for you next?

Depends on the state.
Arizona
  13-1405
Sexual conduct with a minor to engage in sexual intercourse with someone under age 18.

SO some 15 have sex with someone else 15 is, in fact, statutory rape in Az.

Here is a list.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0376.htm

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0376.htm

See the numerous complaints of yellow lights

See the drivers not being prepared to stop at a traffic light.

Sorry, these complaints are ignored because they are pretty much proof of the drivers inability to control their vehicle.

Defensive driving is about anticipating changes in traffic, this means anticipating the light change and adjusting your speed or vehicle control accordingly. Any semi-comptent judge will tear you a new one after using that excuse.

Even if we assume that MOST speed limits are not being set for revenue-generating purposes, they are clearly in many cases set at arbitrarily low numbers,

Wrong

They have a great deal of research behind them (PDF warning)

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGUQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2Fviolence_injury_prevention%2Fpublications%2Froad_traffic%2Fworld_report%2Fspeed_en.pdf&ei=5cswUIyPN-SwiQfW4oH4Ag&usg=AFQjCNH2KK6RUWvl9iFwm61v6sm5DtVw2Q&cad=rja If you think they are arbitrary then you have no idea what you are talking about http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/tra/rpt/2003-R-0673.htm

to lump speeding, which does not inherently imply dangerous or discourteous behavior,

Wrong again.

Speeding is inherently dangerous behaviour.
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/index.html

In Australia speeding has overtaken drugs and alcohol (combined) to become the number 1 cause of road fatalities. It's a similar situation in the US where speeding accounts for 1/3 of traffic accidents.

You need to go have a long hard look at what you've said, it's so wrong it's not funny. You have provided no links and only posted hearsay with no factual value what so ever. Just because you want to believe it does not make it true. Sunshine, you need to hand in your license as all this woefully inaccurate post has done is show you have no idea what you're on about or how to be safe in a car (especially if you think speeding is not dangerous behaviour).

In all literature covering legal self-defense that I've read, it was said that if you provoke someone into attacking you (even with an e.g. verbal insult), you don't get to claim self-defense when they attack you - or at least it will be extremely hard to argue that in court.

Here's Connecticut's model jury instruction on that doctrine: (yeah, I know, it's not Florida)

(One such / Another) circumstance under which a person is not justified in using any degree of physical force in self-defense against another is when (he/she) provokes the other person to use physical force against (him/her).

In order to provoke the use of physical force by another, it is not enough that the defendant by (his/her) conduct elicited the use of physical force by another; rather the defendant must have embarked upon such conduct with the specific intent to provoke the other into using physical force and intending to cause the other physical injury or death.

So you're right about provocation spoiling a self-defense argument, but (at least in Connecticut, and if you have the Florida equivalent please post it) it's a very limited and specific form of provocation -- you have to be deliberately trying to get the other guy to attack you. Just asking someone what he's doing doesn't meet that standard.

Where does it say in the constitution that congress is responsible for being a consumer or even privacy watchdog? Isn't that the responsibility of the FTC Bereau of Consumer Protection, CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), the newly created Department of Consumer Protection or the CPSC (Consumer Protection Safety Commission)? See below for links.. these are separate organizations of government.

I think the congressional hearings are far, far too used. I watch as ignorant senators call up Goldman Sachs or Toyota and grill them on practices and safety. Meanwhile, they can't pass a budget for the bloated, ignorant government to run on. Senators act like royalty, yet they're the ones trading on insider information and often the ones who caused the problem with restrictive laws or regulations in the first place.

The gut instinct of all of us, when we see an article like this,l is to say, "My privacy is important!" and to be a little thankful for the government to be the oversight when we feel powerless, *yet* its the government who is tapping out phones, e-mails and electronic communication illegally. Am I the only one who recognizes how bad things have become??!

-- Ragetech

Links:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm - FTC
http://www.consumerfinance.gov/ - CFPB
http://www.ct.gov/DCP/site/default.asp - Department of Consumer Protection
http://www.cpsc.gov/ - CPSC

The Netherlands being more homogenous culturally and ethnically, combined with 7th in the world per capita net worth and a tiny population, have absolutely nothing to do with it.

If I'm reading you correctly, the usual perception that's being expressed here is that the higher crime rate must be black and Hispanic people. This is not an uncommon belief in the US, but statistics don't back up that perception: For instance, check out Connecticut crime statistics from 2000-2004: There were over 3 times as many whites as blacks arrested for burglary, larceny, aggravated assault, and arson, and about twice as many white rapists as black rapists. The difference in incarceration rates is mainly because black criminals were far more likely to be convicted and sentenced to prison time than white criminals who had committed the same offense.

every state makes allowances of people who are similar in age... 18 to 17 does not make it an automatic fail anywhere

check this list.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0376.htm

Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.

You really think these idiots were doing making a political statement or exercising free speech? They were both arranging riots and one even turned up for his riot.

As for the limits of free speech, the UK has plenty of it but it does not include inciting (encouraging) people to commit serious offences. Doing so will see you charged with a crime.

The US may have different boundaries and way of framing free speech. But free speech doesn't mean there are no limits. For example and just randomly, Connecticut has a law against inciting injuries against persons or property which likely would have applied to defendants writing similar remarks there. I expect most states would have statutes for incitement, criminal intent, threatening behaviour, conspiracy or a raft of other overlapping criminal acts that would have applied to these two.

How does the school district even have jurisdiction in this case? It might be libel, but unless the school actually has jurisdiction this suspension and expulsion is a load of crap.

This example is from Conneticut:

You asked what authority a local school board has to expel a student from school for conduct off school grounds. You were especially interested in whether a school board may expel a student for a sexual assault that occurs away from school.

Connecticut's school expulsion law provides for both mandatory and discretionary expulsions for out-of-school conduct (CGS 10-233d (a) (1) and (2)). School boards must expel students for carrying a weapon, or selling or distributing illegal drugs, whether the activity occurs on or off school grounds. For other types of conduct, including sexual assault, a school board has the discretion to expel a student from school.

In order to impose a discretionary expulsion for out-of-school conduct, the law requires a school board to show that the student's actions not only violate a publicized school policy but are also "seriously disruptive of the educational process.â In 1998, the Connecticut Supreme Court construed the latter phrase to mean that, to warrant expulsion, the out-of-school conduct must (1) have a direct connection to the school's operations and (2) "markedly interrupt or seriously impede" the school's daily operations.

Within these requirements, a school board may expel a student who has been convicted of an out-of-school sexual assault. Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, a hearing officer upheld the Trumbull Board of Education's expulsion of a high school student convicted of sexually assaulting another student at an unknown location outside of school. The hearing officer found that, based on the facts of the case, allowing the convicted student to attend school would severely disrupt the educational process in the school.

EXPULSION FOR CONDUCT OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL

Washington wasn't the first President.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/history/samhuntington.htm

It's appropriate, since the entire "social security trust fund" is nothing but IOUs from a government that's deeper in debt than any other government has ever been in all of recorded history.

-jcr

But the US also has an economy that's larger than any other economy in recorded history. How large is the debt in proportion to the economy? How much of that debt is owed to the social security trust fund?

Year, Debt (in $B), Debt/GDP
2005 12638.4 62.77
2006 13398.9 63.49
2007 14077.6 63.99
2008 14441.4 69.15
2009 14258.2 83.29
2010 14623.9 94.27 (projected)

There were precisely six years in our nation's history when our debt-to-GDP ratio was over 90%: 1944-1949. Of course, we had a huge jobs program back then, which was pumping up the economy. We were able to leverage that momentum to pay down the debt to 50-year debt/GDP lows by the mid 1970s (although the absolute size of the debt kept increasing through that period).

Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

The net present value of total OASDI costs over the next 75 years is estimated to be about $5.3T, or about 37% of the present value of the debt. On the other hand, the net present value of Medicare part A costs over the same window is $13.4T, or 94% of the present value of the debt. As anyone who is familiar with the numbers will tell you, Medicare is a much larger and more immediate problem than Social Security.

Source: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0197.htm

Next time, look up the numbers yourself, ya lazy bum.

The notion that decriminalizing or legalizing drugs causes a surge in uptake needs to be debunked. Here's a chunk of text from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0204.htm

There is little hard evidence that marijuana decriminalization actually increases usage. An Australian study from 1997 found no increase in marijuana usage among university students after the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) decriminalized marijuana possession in 1992 (Jill McGeorge & C. K. Aitken, Effects of Cannabis Decriminalization in the Australian Capital Territory on University Students' Patterns of Use, Journal of Drug Issues; Fall 1997). An article in The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry reviewed studies on the impacts of marijuana decriminalization in U. S. states, Australian states, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The authors did not see a causal relationship between marijuana decriminalization (or the push in the 1990s to re-criminalize) and actual marijuana usage rates (Wayne Hall & Robin Room, Should We Recriminalize Cannabis Use? The Case Against, The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Dec. 2008).

Let's try to stick to the facts, not disseminate perceived wisdom, propaganda, or idle speculation.

It's not that strange, it's illegal here in Connecticut also. http://www.ct.gov/dosr/cwp/view.asp?Q=291440&A=2031 It competes with the state lottery, and Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods casinos, diverting money out of the state. I sure that Massachusetts faces a similar situation--I've never been to the Sulfolk Downs but I imagine they have slots?

Depends on a lot of factors. For instance, the state of Oregon requires that a certain minimum number of trees be replanted after logging - even the "least productive areas" (their term) requires that a minimum of 100 tree seedlings per acre be replanted for every acre of logging... IMHO that's likely more than enough to cover the far smaller number of mature trees that had been cut down. They have to replant within a year of logging, and have to insure that by the fifth year, the seedlings must all be "healthy and out-competing the surrounding vegetation" (again, their term). The burden for this is on the landowner, be it a logging company or someone selling his/her timber to one.

Other states have very similar laws (see cite above).

How could putting someone to death (that is assuming that the person is put to death within a year) cost less then keeping them in jail for the rest of their lives?

Automatic appeals. Court time.

An anti-death penalty site which relies in large part on this study.

Cost to incarcerate one person, one year is about $50k, currently.

A $1 million trial thus costs about the same as 20 years of imprisonment. If the cost differential between a death penalty trial and a life incarceration trial exceeds about $3 million, the incarceration becomes more cost effective pretty much 100% of the time.

Torts themselves add very little to the costs of healthcare. However, because the costs from a single malpractice suit can bankrupt a doctor even if they win, and the damages from a successful malpractice suit can bankrupt a small hospital, every doctor MUST have malpractice insurance in the millions of dollars, and hospitals must have insurance in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Insurance rates are so high in some areas for certain specialties that doctors cannot afford to practice.

According to a congressional study on medical malpractice insurance rates in 2003, the premiums for interns were between $15,000 -$20,000. That's a hell of a lot for someone fresh out of med-school. For general surgeons it ranged from $40,000 up to $90,000. One of the worst is OBGYN, which ranged from $80,000 to $120,000. Only neurosurgeons have a higher average premium.

Think about that, $120,000 per year just for the privilege of delivering babies. That's not including the schooling debt a doctor has, or any equipment they have to purchase. Assuming $2,000 per baby, an OBGYN has to deliver 60 per year just to cover the insurance costs. The average OBGYN delivers 100 babies a year, so obviously this number is going to have to be much much higher in order to make any money. And guess what? It is. Factor in the debt a doctor, especially a specialized doctor like OBGYN, and you have an additional overhead of between $75,000 and $150000 before you can even start practicing.

And those are pure costs that don't take into account administration overhead (which is huge) and less tangible costs directly relating to dealing with insurance. If you have your own practice you can count on $40k at a minimum to hire a lawyer to make sure what you have covers what you need. Then of course there are the extra costs of the accountant to deal with keeping your finances straight because they are now becoming a major headache to keep straight.

If you start looking at the total extra costs a doctor's office has in order to deal with insurance it becomes a significant portion of the cost of doing business that is in no way related to actually doing the business. It is simply an extra cost. Add in the administrative costs incurred by having to dick around with a patient's insurance company and you can start to see why delivering a baby costs anywhere from $15,000 - $25,000.

Uh, they do that. There are thousands of laws. Many not enforced in practice.

If they enforced them all, they might not even get out of their neighborhood. Might be a bit like Robocop when he was loaded with hundreds of directives :).

According to the laws in Michigan, committing adultery would get you a life sentence. Seems the courts and prosecutors there are talking about repealing the relevant law. So that's selective prosecution as well.

But you know, maybe one should take a poll of betrayed spouses (and maybe even their children) and ask them what their opinion on adultery is. Do they view it as less or more negative than being mugged at gunpoint? How about being beaten up (but resulting in no broken bones or major scarring)? I won't be surprised if many of them would get over being mugged at gunpoint far more easily.

The average sentence for robbery in the 1st degree when armed with a deadly weapon (not necessarily a gun) appears to be 10 years.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/olr/htm/2000-r-0510.htm

Of course one has to factor in that a robber could in theory more easily rob more people than a person could commit adultery with. Perhaps a robber is a danger to more people and thus should be put in jail for longer?

You left out Section 14-286b, which supports his position.

All I could see when I read that was the big honking word "LIMITED".

Limited to time? Sure. Availability? Why not!

Because ambiguity in a contract is construed against the drafter of the contract. Provided you meet the limits explicitly specified ("personal, noncommercial use") you can do anything you want with the content, and Microsoft is barred from imposing further restrictions after the fact.

Maybe not the best business practice, but they do have the right to refuse to sell parts for almost any reason*.

* prohibited reasons vary by state.

Here is one answer (source: State of Connecticut Judicial Branch):

Q: What becomes unavailable to the public when a file is sealed by the court?
A: Only those portions of the file that the judge has ordered sealed. In the event of a partial sealing, certain information in the court file will continue to be available for public inspection.

You want to talk about the facts? Ok. Here's some insight for you: the temperature at which coffee is brewed is not the temperature at which it should be served or consumed. Coffee should be brewed at approximately 96 to 98 degrees Celsius. Drinking it at that temperature would, however, be incredibly stupid.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0305417907002550

The burn model shows the standard exponential dependence of injury level on temperature. The preferred drinking temperature of coffee is specified in the literature as 140 +/- 15 deg F (60 +/- 8.3 deg C) for a population of 300 subjects. A linear (with respect to temperature) figure of merit merged the two effects to identify an optimal drinking temperature of approximately 136 deg F (57.8 deg C).

Still don't believe me? Well, find some sources, because all the ones I find indicate that water at temperatures of 150 degrees and upward can cause serious burns in a mere 2 seconds.

http://www.texaschildrenspediatrics.org/healthlibrary/pa_hotwatr_hhg.aspx
  http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/HealthAZ/Burn-Safety-Hot-Water-Temperature.aspx?articleID=8652&categoryID=AZ6d
  http://www.cpnonline.org/CRS/CRS/pa_hotwatr_pep.htm
  http://www.ct.gov/dds/cwp/view.asp?a=12&q=379294
  http://www.tap-water-burn.com/pamphlet/water_use.htm

If it's being considered child porn, having sex would obviously be considered statutory rape...

not necessarily. It depends on the ages of the parties involved. Check local listings for your area. Most states have a law that forbids sex with anyone under a certain age (usually some where between 12-15 years old). Other states permit sex between two minors presuming both are older then the age previously mentioned. Still more states permit sex with someone under 18 with someone older then 18 if the age difference is within a limited range, 2-5 year age difference for instance.

In Indiana, where I'm at, having sex with someone under 14 is always statutory rape regardless of the age of the other party, and having sex with a 14-16 year old is considered so if the other party is over 18. However if one party is 17 and the other is 19, it's not statutory rape. HOWEVER, child pornography laws say that it's illegal to have pictures/videos/etc of anyone under 18. So a 19 year old can have sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and see her naked, he just can't take a picture of her doing so.