In my state, this "excuse to make a traffic stop" is HIGHLY illegal. The ONLY legitimate reason to pull over a vehicle is probable cause to suspect a "crime" (which includes traffic infractions of course).
And it does no good to say "they can just make up a reason". It's still illegal. Grounds for dismissal.
"What happens to you if you refuse the test? Do you get shipped off to prison? Then stop this 'guilty until proven innocent' crap."
"Guilty" enough to not get the job is still "guilty". So get off your high horse.
"The second problem is that drug tests are unreliable."
[citation needed]
[Google needed]
Seriously. If you can't go to Wikipedia and look up Base Rate Fallacy (as I suggested above), then go to Google and see how that affects the consequences of drug testing, maybe you shouldn't be opening your mouth.
"Marijuana stays detectable for an extended period, way past the time it affects someone. You are already seeing inklings of this issue in states where it has been legalized and they want to keep people from driving while in an altered state."
And one problem THERE, is that it's not possible with current technology to determine this.
Another problem with that, is that it's probably not worthwhile anyway. The most comprehensive study I am aware of in regard to driving impairment under the influence of THC was done a long time ago by the Canadian government. "A Report By The Commission Of Inquiry Into The Non-Medical Use Of Drugs: Cannibis"
That was a large, carefully performed, double-blind study. And their conclusion was that it takes a MASSIVE amount of THC to impair driving anywhere near the way alcohol does; it is very difficult for somebody to even get that stoned.
Trying to determine whether someone is driving while "impaired" by THC is a pointless exercise. They should not even try. If they do, you can bet a lot of innocent people will go to jail or lose their licenses, because there simply is no way to really tell.
"I am ok with drug testing welfare recipients. Not because "Drugs are bad, m'kay?", but because the hell if someone living on welfare should be spending money on shit like that. If you can afford to keep yourself in an altered state of mind every day it just might be worth looking into whether or not you actually need that financial assistance again."
The problem is not so much that drug testing -- if it actually did what it was intended to do -- is inherently a bad thing. The problems are twofold:
The first is presumption of guilt. You are guilty until proven otherwise (by a drug test). Plain and simple, this is an un-American concept, and it should be taken out and shot dead with a cannon. It is simply not a concept accepted by those who truly believe in justice.
The second problem is that drug tests are unreliable. And the seeming paradox is that the better they get, the worse they are. Worse, that is, in the sense that they demonize innocent people. But explaining why this is would take up far too much space here. Look up "base rate fallacy" on Wikipedia.
"They could be shit and looking for a fall-guy (but really, that's alot of expense and effort, why bother?), but they could just want someone to contribute to their project..."
I doubt very many companies are actually looking for someone to be a scapegoat. I'm sure it happens occasionally, but I doubt it happens very often.
But nevertheless, I have found that when projects don't go well, a lot of managers will shit on whoever they can to try to show that it wasn't their fault. Even if -- or especially if -- it really was.
"The problem is that there is always some desperate person willing to take your place, either out of apathy or economic necessity. Eventually, if enough of these people fill in the vacancies, then you'll find this sort of thing spreading to other workplaces, again chasing you out."
It wouldn't last. That worked for a while for drug testing, too, until people realized what a farcical damage to society it is.
"Look, child molesters are child molesters for life. It's a sexual preference. Having sex with other adults is just boring."
Wow. Those three sentences are so wrong in this context, in so many ways, it's hard to count.
We had some debates about proposed changes in the law here a few years ago, so I spent some time looking these things up. Actual crime statistics, for just one example.
Your FIRST error is assuming that "sex offenders" are child molesters. By far the majority of people who are on sex offender registries are there for "offenses" that did not involve children AT ALL. Many of the laws that put people on sex offender registries have nothing at all to do with children, an some do not involve either children OR sex. Assuming these people are all child molesters is exactly the kind of wrongheadedness we have been talking about here.
Your SECOND error is the fallacy that "sex offenders" (or even child molesters... in most cases not the same thing) are incurable. Bullshit. In fact, crime statistics show that sex offenders (and yes, even child molesters) have a LOWER recidivism rate (i.e., re-offend) than the GENERAL prison population.
Your comment illustrates beautifully what damage these laws do to society.
That's not the problem. If I am not mistaken, most states list the kind of offense on their registries.
The problems are: (A) you'd never get a chance to even say that... your job application is already in the trash. And (B) the problem isn't that they don't check for serious offenders anyway. The problem is that they don't check for the minor offenders. To most people in the study, sex offender was sex offender, period. You must be a child molester.
The issue wasn't that the person wasn't guilty of the offense, the issue was grouping trivial offenses with horrifying ones under the label of "sex offender". This is over-punishing the person who commits a minor infraction by treating them as if they'd done something truly deserving of a lifetime of being labeled a "sex offender".
Sex offender registries are the modern equivalent of The Scarlet Letter. Branding someone for life is just plain A BAD IDEA. If someone is that dangerous to society, they should be kept in prison. If they're not, and they've done their time, let them out. Period.
I've had people tell me that "real" sex offenders are incurable. But I did my research, and it turns out that's not true. The amount of recidivism among "sex criminals" is actually lower than most other serious crimes.
It might be fine for Japanese culture... I don't know. But it sure as hell wouldn't fly here. As soon as I found out those were required I'd be out the door.
I second smpoole7. As a contractor, you can't fix bad management. No matter how "professionally" you try, you're going to get blamed.
On lesson I have learned the hard way: if you insist on tackling it anyway, keep records of EVERYTHING. All emails, all memos. Even record conversations if you are where/when you can get away with it, and if you aren't in a position to do that, take good dated notes. Then when all is said and done if they try to blame you, you can prove it wasn't your fault.
I have worked as a contractor for some very bad managers. Of course I did not know that going in. But later when they tried to blame me for problems I could point to an email, or a Skype conversation I had saved, and say "Uh... just no. That's not what really happened. See?"
And it really pisses them off when you do it in front of other people. But you might as well, because they're trying to shaft you anyway, right?
I was given a project that three (!!!) previous developers had worked on, but obviously none of them finished.
The code mostly looked okay. And it passed all the tests.
But that was misleading. The way the code was written, it was hard to read. AND it had sloppy formatting. Those are not necessarily signs of bad code, but they can be bad omens. I should have heeded them.
Turned out the tests were poorly written. And whenever I made even little changes, things broke all over. To top it off, rather than giving me time to refactor the old code, they kept me too busy making trivial visual changes.
THEN, the kicker: they suddenly hit me with a deadline of 3 days! I could hardly believe it. Even though with a lot of effort I had finally gotten it basically working, it was nowhere near ready for production. I told them this; they didn't listen.
So of course when it wasn't ready by the deadline, they blamed me. Which is just plain dumb. I didn't really care at that point... I was a contractor and I had seen what a rotten place it was to work. I was happy to bow out. Which I later found out was the same attitude as the three developers before me. They were happy to be out of there.
"You seem just as adamant that this person you don't know at all is most likely guilty."
And this is a very good illustratration of one of the BIG problems with such registries: no matter how trivial the crime, people will assume (A) that you're guilty, and (B) that you are a child rapist, even if you were only convicted of a trivial offense.
Studies have shown that people almost never inquire why someone is on a registry. Instead they just assume the worst.
And it also shows why a national registry is an outrageously BAD IDEA. A person who was an offender in one state would face a lifetime stigma, even in other states where the "offending" activity was perfectly legal.
In some states you don't even have to be near a school. And there are other things that can get you on the list.
For example: you live in a state where the age of consent is 16, but you live near the border with a state where it is 18. (Yes, it is 16 in some states and in others lower still.) You go across the border on a weekend to go boating, or skiing, or something... forgetting where you are, you get caught by somebody in an intimate situation.
You guessed it... a lifetime on an offender registry for doing something that would have been perfectly legal just a mile away.
"You don't have to justify your non-hate of a convicted sex-offender by downplaying their guilt. It's perfectly acceptable to say that he committed a crime, and has changed his life, and is now a law-abiding citizen."
Why don't YOU accept the fact that some things that get people on sex-offender registries are inherently ridiculous, and therefore a travesty of justice?
Did you know that in some states, going out behind the tavern and peeing in the bushes because the bathroom is full can get you put on a sex-offender registry for life?
The laws are fucking ridiculous and need to change. Sure, some people are guilty of horrendous crimes. But taking people who have committed a pretty damned trivial offense, and lumping them together for life with child rapists, is at least as offensive as those child rapists.
But that's completely irrelevant to the point I made.
While I acknowledge that it is technically true, I don't see that it has any bearing on the subject at hand. If you define "pollutant" that way, then anything at all can be a pollutant (water, for example). Which pretty much sucks any real meaning out of the discussion.
"And you recognize that other AC so well that you fail to see we're the same person? Fail much? Here... I'll greet you in our traditional fashion, since we're such great friends:"
What? You really weren't smart enough to figure out what
"Playing dumb should never be an acceptable tactic in any discussion."
I was tempted to write something else, but I will restrain myself. I will leave it at this: WHOOSH... it went right over your head. You might want to think about it a bit. Maybe it will come to you.
Obviously, that depends entirely on where you live (like New Orleans)...
The residents of New Orleans should have fled a century AGO. Living in a coastal area that was already below sea level is not a shining example of human intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
Literally.
In my state, this "excuse to make a traffic stop" is HIGHLY illegal. The ONLY legitimate reason to pull over a vehicle is probable cause to suspect a "crime" (which includes traffic infractions of course).
And it does no good to say "they can just make up a reason". It's still illegal. Grounds for dismissal.
"What happens to you if you refuse the test? Do you get shipped off to prison? Then stop this 'guilty until proven innocent' crap."
"Guilty" enough to not get the job is still "guilty". So get off your high horse.
"The second problem is that drug tests are unreliable."
[citation needed]
[Google needed]
Seriously. If you can't go to Wikipedia and look up Base Rate Fallacy (as I suggested above), then go to Google and see how that affects the consequences of drug testing, maybe you shouldn't be opening your mouth.
"Marijuana stays detectable for an extended period, way past the time it affects someone. You are already seeing inklings of this issue in states where it has been legalized and they want to keep people from driving while in an altered state."
And one problem THERE, is that it's not possible with current technology to determine this.
Another problem with that, is that it's probably not worthwhile anyway. The most comprehensive study I am aware of in regard to driving impairment under the influence of THC was done a long time ago by the Canadian government. "A Report By The Commission Of Inquiry Into The Non-Medical Use Of Drugs: Cannibis"
That was a large, carefully performed, double-blind study. And their conclusion was that it takes a MASSIVE amount of THC to impair driving anywhere near the way alcohol does; it is very difficult for somebody to even get that stoned.
Trying to determine whether someone is driving while "impaired" by THC is a pointless exercise. They should not even try. If they do, you can bet a lot of innocent people will go to jail or lose their licenses, because there simply is no way to really tell.
"I am ok with drug testing welfare recipients. Not because "Drugs are bad, m'kay?", but because the hell if someone living on welfare should be spending money on shit like that. If you can afford to keep yourself in an altered state of mind every day it just might be worth looking into whether or not you actually need that financial assistance again."
The problem is not so much that drug testing -- if it actually did what it was intended to do -- is inherently a bad thing. The problems are twofold:
The first is presumption of guilt. You are guilty until proven otherwise (by a drug test). Plain and simple, this is an un-American concept, and it should be taken out and shot dead with a cannon. It is simply not a concept accepted by those who truly believe in justice.
The second problem is that drug tests are unreliable. And the seeming paradox is that the better they get, the worse they are. Worse, that is, in the sense that they demonize innocent people. But explaining why this is would take up far too much space here. Look up "base rate fallacy" on Wikipedia.
In the intended context of my comment, legislators are not "the people".
Legislators do stupid things all the time. I can only wish it were otherwise.
"If the Internet is killing newspapers, why isn't it killing this dead tree company?"
It isn't a dead tree company, per se. Elsevier publishes as much online as offline. And more than most.
Having said that: they can still die in a fire.
"They could be shit and looking for a fall-guy (but really, that's alot of expense and effort, why bother?), but they could just want someone to contribute to their project..."
I doubt very many companies are actually looking for someone to be a scapegoat. I'm sure it happens occasionally, but I doubt it happens very often.
But nevertheless, I have found that when projects don't go well, a lot of managers will shit on whoever they can to try to show that it wasn't their fault. Even if -- or especially if -- it really was.
"The problem is that there is always some desperate person willing to take your place, either out of apathy or economic necessity. Eventually, if enough of these people fill in the vacancies, then you'll find this sort of thing spreading to other workplaces, again chasing you out."
It wouldn't last. That worked for a while for drug testing, too, until people realized what a farcical damage to society it is.
"Look, child molesters are child molesters for life. It's a sexual preference. Having sex with other adults is just boring."
Wow. Those three sentences are so wrong in this context, in so many ways, it's hard to count.
We had some debates about proposed changes in the law here a few years ago, so I spent some time looking these things up. Actual crime statistics, for just one example.
Your FIRST error is assuming that "sex offenders" are child molesters. By far the majority of people who are on sex offender registries are there for "offenses" that did not involve children AT ALL. Many of the laws that put people on sex offender registries have nothing at all to do with children, an some do not involve either children OR sex. Assuming these people are all child molesters is exactly the kind of wrongheadedness we have been talking about here.
Your SECOND error is the fallacy that "sex offenders" (or even child molesters... in most cases not the same thing) are incurable. Bullshit. In fact, crime statistics show that sex offenders (and yes, even child molesters) have a LOWER recidivism rate (i.e., re-offend) than the GENERAL prison population.
Your comment illustrates beautifully what damage these laws do to society.
That's not the problem. If I am not mistaken, most states list the kind of offense on their registries.
The problems are: (A) you'd never get a chance to even say that... your job application is already in the trash. And (B) the problem isn't that they don't check for serious offenders anyway. The problem is that they don't check for the minor offenders. To most people in the study, sex offender was sex offender, period. You must be a child molester.
Hah. But THIS time, it's the unicorn that gets uni-cornholed.
The issue wasn't that the person wasn't guilty of the offense, the issue was grouping trivial offenses with horrifying ones under the label of "sex offender". This is over-punishing the person who commits a minor infraction by treating them as if they'd done something truly deserving of a lifetime of being labeled a "sex offender".
Sex offender registries are the modern equivalent of The Scarlet Letter. Branding someone for life is just plain A BAD IDEA. If someone is that dangerous to society, they should be kept in prison. If they're not, and they've done their time, let them out. Period.
I've had people tell me that "real" sex offenders are incurable. But I did my research, and it turns out that's not true. The amount of recidivism among "sex criminals" is actually lower than most other serious crimes.
It might be fine for Japanese culture... I don't know. But it sure as hell wouldn't fly here. As soon as I found out those were required I'd be out the door.
I second smpoole7. As a contractor, you can't fix bad management. No matter how "professionally" you try, you're going to get blamed.
On lesson I have learned the hard way: if you insist on tackling it anyway, keep records of EVERYTHING. All emails, all memos. Even record conversations if you are where/when you can get away with it, and if you aren't in a position to do that, take good dated notes. Then when all is said and done if they try to blame you, you can prove it wasn't your fault.
I have worked as a contractor for some very bad managers. Of course I did not know that going in. But later when they tried to blame me for problems I could point to an email, or a Skype conversation I had saved, and say "Uh... just no. That's not what really happened. See?"
And it really pisses them off when you do it in front of other people. But you might as well, because they're trying to shaft you anyway, right?
I was in this boat a couple of years ago.
I was given a project that three (!!!) previous developers had worked on, but obviously none of them finished.
The code mostly looked okay. And it passed all the tests.
But that was misleading. The way the code was written, it was hard to read. AND it had sloppy formatting. Those are not necessarily signs of bad code, but they can be bad omens. I should have heeded them.
Turned out the tests were poorly written. And whenever I made even little changes, things broke all over. To top it off, rather than giving me time to refactor the old code, they kept me too busy making trivial visual changes.
THEN, the kicker: they suddenly hit me with a deadline of 3 days! I could hardly believe it. Even though with a lot of effort I had finally gotten it basically working, it was nowhere near ready for production. I told them this; they didn't listen.
So of course when it wasn't ready by the deadline, they blamed me. Which is just plain dumb. I didn't really care at that point... I was a contractor and I had seen what a rotten place it was to work. I was happy to bow out. Which I later found out was the same attitude as the three developers before me. They were happy to be out of there.
"You seem just as adamant that this person you don't know at all is most likely guilty."
And this is a very good illustratration of one of the BIG problems with such registries: no matter how trivial the crime, people will assume (A) that you're guilty, and (B) that you are a child rapist, even if you were only convicted of a trivial offense.
Studies have shown that people almost never inquire why someone is on a registry. Instead they just assume the worst.
And it also shows why a national registry is an outrageously BAD IDEA. A person who was an offender in one state would face a lifetime stigma, even in other states where the "offending" activity was perfectly legal.
In some states you don't even have to be near a school. And there are other things that can get you on the list.
For example: you live in a state where the age of consent is 16, but you live near the border with a state where it is 18. (Yes, it is 16 in some states and in others lower still.) You go across the border on a weekend to go boating, or skiing, or something... forgetting where you are, you get caught by somebody in an intimate situation.
You guessed it... a lifetime on an offender registry for doing something that would have been perfectly legal just a mile away.
"You don't have to justify your non-hate of a convicted sex-offender by downplaying their guilt. It's perfectly acceptable to say that he committed a crime, and has changed his life, and is now a law-abiding citizen."
Why don't YOU accept the fact that some things that get people on sex-offender registries are inherently ridiculous, and therefore a travesty of justice?
Did you know that in some states, going out behind the tavern and peeing in the bushes because the bathroom is full can get you put on a sex-offender registry for life?
The laws are fucking ridiculous and need to change. Sure, some people are guilty of horrendous crimes. But taking people who have committed a pretty damned trivial offense, and lumping them together for life with child rapists, is at least as offensive as those child rapists.
Look up the actual laws. Get a clue.
But that's completely irrelevant to the point I made.
While I acknowledge that it is technically true, I don't see that it has any bearing on the subject at hand. If you define "pollutant" that way, then anything at all can be a pollutant (water, for example). Which pretty much sucks any real meaning out of the discussion.
"And you recognize that other AC so well that you fail to see we're the same person? Fail much? Here... I'll greet you in our traditional fashion, since we're such great friends:"
What? You really weren't smart enough to figure out what
"But then you knew that?"
meant?
That's pretty funny.
"Um... Mine was a serious comment *and* joke, so back at yo"
As a serious comment it failed then, because it's out of context.
The discussion here is about MAN-MADE pollution. Not volcanic eruptions. Moving the goalposts does not get you out from under the Whoosh.
"Nitrogen is major constituent of the atmosphere. Now go sit for an hour in a room that is pure nitrogen and let me know how it turns out."
And how is this relevant to my point? Are you trying to say we have "global nitrogen pollution"?
"Playing dumb should never be an acceptable tactic in any discussion."
I was tempted to write something else, but I will restrain myself. I will leave it at this: WHOOSH... it went right over your head. You might want to think about it a bit. Maybe it will come to you.
Obviously, that depends entirely on where you live (like New Orleans)...
The residents of New Orleans should have fled a century AGO. Living in a coastal area that was already below sea level is not a shining example of human intelligence.
"Classic projection."
How so? Please explain how anything I stated was an example of "projection". HE was arguing with a statement I made to someone else!
And why make an anonymous coward the target of your vitriol?
Because that particular AC, whom I recognize, has made me a target of HIS, of course. But then you knew that.