"How about we get some cameras and record what happens, then in court we can just use the videos as evidence."
And why would we need video in court unless in adds to the officer testimony? We already have the officers sworn testimony. The video can be deleted after the officer writes the report. This is how it happens in interrogations already and it is perfectly legal. Why would it be any different for video.
The police have the best of both worlds in many cases. If the evidence backs them up, preserve it. If it is less than ideal, write it up and discard it because it isn't needed.
"I mean, I kind of agree with you, many people shouldn't be driving and we pay a 55,000 person a year toll in deaths from accidents. But what's the alternative?"
We could actually teach people how to drive. And actually evaluate them properly. I probably had a fairly rigorous drivers ed course and drivers exam (for the US) and it wasn't very good.
On the teaching front. Teach the rules, both written and unwritten (obey the speed limit but also don't impede traffic, for instance). Teach them how to actually control the car, especially in emergency situations. A basic driving school. Put them in real traffic and correct their errors. If they do something deliberately unsafe fail them and make them start over. Then evaluate them in a similar situation. The crappy drivers in this scenario would be better than most drivers today. People would take driving a bit more seriously because it would cost real money to get a license.
We could also enforce traffic laws differently. Penalize things that are actually dangerous rather than things that are easy to ticket.
"The google-model is opt-out-- "unless you specifically contact us and tell us not to, we now have your implied permission to use your work.""
But as opt-out is currenty LEGAL, I don't see a problem. Any author/copyright holder not currently aware of the option probably doesn't give a damn. This isn't some mouseprint clause in a 50 page cell phone contract. And considering the public good that will likely come of this (as compared to extending copyright) copyright holders/authors can frankly go fuck themselves.
"It's been going on for the 25 years I've been around and the government has made little or no effort to challenge it."
If an employee does not file a complaint, the government does not investigate. But once a complaint is filed, the DOL will happily look at similar employees in similar positions for the last few years. The damage a single complaint can do is staggering. The fact that so few are filed indicates that most employees may deserve the abuse they get....
"If the IRS told people what they owed, they would be removing this check."
Nice conspiracy theory. Totally wrong. The IRS is not allowed to do this because they are not allowed to compete with private industry by CONGRESS. That's right, competition is good until it threatens your business model. Millions of people waste money duplicating a process that could be done by the IRS at little to no additional cost. All hail the free market.
"Today, it is a secret battle between people reporting what other people should be reporting and paying on."
It's no secret. If a W2 or 1099 form is generated for you, it's also generated for the IRS.
"If the IRS pre-fills what the government knows about on the form, then that tells you what the government doesn't know about, and thus can safely be omitted."
This is a very bad assumption. What if the information gets corrected a couple of years down the road? You get a nice letter from the IRS that includes a couple of years of interest and penalties. If the amount is small enough they might even agree not to prosecute you. What a deal!
"But the government's not completely stupid -- if it was more beneficial, financially, to make the tax code simple, they would have done it years ago, IMHO."
The tax code isn't simple because WE don't want it so. That's right, you and me, want it complex. Well, not exactly. We want deductions for home loan interest, education, and our pet projects. So does everybody else. Congress obliges. Hence the massive and complex tax code.
A simple tax code would have modifications before the ink was dried. In the end, if people don't like the complex forms, they should stop using them. I've filled out many business related forms and found that they are only as complex as you want to make them. If you want to eke out the last penny of tax savings, go ahead. Just don't whine about the effort. Do you really think that if the tax code is simplified that you would pay less in taxes?
"Or the third party that guarantees their software is correct and backs it up with cash if it is wrong?"
That guarantee is only useful if you can actually get them to pay up. I think that you will find that they will try to weasel out of any mistake by claiming it was "user error". Of course the same goes for a non software based provider.
"The burden is always on the tax payer, not the IRS even if the IRS is the one that is at fault."
Always was and always will be. Just like every other law. Most people don't need a tax preparer, be it software or human. Just follow the directions and fill out the form. It will take less than an hour. Many millions can fill out the EZ form in minutes. Sure, the first time takes longer but the tax code doesn't change THAT much.
"That said, I wish we could go to a simpler system that means we wouldn't need to wrack or brains in frustration every year."
The system is only as complex as you make it. Most people can fill out an EZ form. Of course you will lose deductions. But that is your choice. Tax preparers make a killing by reinforcing the idea that filing tax forms are difficult. If people have difficulty filling out the common tax forms how can they possibly do their jobs?
"Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate?"
(Special) Interest Groups. Also known as the voters.
The tax code is used to influence and/or create policy. Want people to own homes? Then create an home loan interest tax deduction (loophole). Want to encourage long term stock ownership? Then create a capital gains tax deduction (loophole). Want to encourage X, Y, and Z. Then create create a deduction (loophole) for X, Y and Z.
Pretty soon any flat tax will look just like our current tax code. People don't really know what they want. At least they seem to vote in the opposite.
"Whatever they are, they need to at least be able to draw from a credit card or bank account, and need to be quick and hassle-free for the payer to set up and start using."
You answered your own question. Credit cards and bank accounts (debit cards). Businesses and charities don't seem to have a problem with them. Yes, they cost money to use and set up. They are also regulated.
Anyone who uses paypal to manage money that they aren't willing to lose is a moron.
Not based on the numbers. It might become a useful tool. But at present it cannot reliably differentiate between people with diagnosed PTSD and those without. Just imagine the results if you didn't already know the answer.
Is it really cheaper (and better) to use an expensive test to screen and use specialists to weed out the false positives?
Is the military culture really that bad? Is the mental health services and people really that poor?
I realize that this is a brand new test but if it is this bad on a known population with existing symptoms it is not likely to be useful on people without symptoms or with newly emerging symptoms. Worthy of research but the reporters should be sent into combat with dowsing rods to detect mines. In short, all hype, no substance.
Not like you and me. If you were to incorporate as an individual and operate like a corporation with respect to taxes, the IRS would present you with a pretty impressive tax bill during an audit.
No they don't. Only if they happen to be charged with a crime and are found guilty is there a chance they might go to jail. The more money you have to mount a defense (or the higher your socioeconomic status) the better off you are.
"If the CEO deliberately uses the company to kill people, he will go to jail."
Simply untrue. Companies routinely commit willful safety violations that result in worker deaths. No jail time. Companies routinely manufacture products they know will result in deaths. No jail time. It's very rare for people running a corporation to go to jail. The whole point of a corporation is liability avoidance. What works for economic liability also works for criminal liability. In simple terms, dumb criminals commit robbery. Smart ones work in banking.
Large companies have immense resources. Only in cases of great public outcry or clear crimes will the police want to take them on.
"So you mean voters are easily influenced by propaganda and are unable to consider the source?"
Yes. It's called advertising. Massive amounts of money are spent on it. Designed to override logic and reason.
The whole point of the propaganda is to prevent people from finding or considering the source. That's why you channel money through multiple PAC's-to obscure who actually funds the campaign. For instance, do you think Prop 8 in California would have done as well if every ad had stated it was sponsored in part by the Mormon Church?
"I'm not sure democracy is a good idea if merely allowing corporations to speak freely or donate money to politicians, when it's the individuals that ultimately do the election."
Do you also believe that the "free market" isn't such a good idea? Same concept. Except people purchase goods and services instead of voting based on advertising.
Or we could simply have reasonable government regulation. It really does work.
"...one of the problems with America these days,...and could care less about facts surrounding a situation."
Actually, that's always been the the case. Gossip has always been popular. Logic and reason does not come naturally. Journalism and muckraking has a very long history. It's just that the media has become really good at pandering to our base nature.
"There was a slashdot article yesterday about a sonic weapon that stunned at meters away and killed at feet away."
It's called a bomb. Been around for ages. Other names include: grenade, mine, etc.
"And they've had tasers for a while."
Which is like a phaser how exactly? A phaser is a silly idea anyway. A magical weapon that can stun creatures of various size at the flick of a switch without lasting effect but can also kill by disintegration. Is a lightweight, one handed weapon that rarely runs out of ammo and can be used as a massive bomb if needed.
"As far as medical tricorders, we're past that."
No, we are not. We are not remotely close. It's a hospital in a box. Actually it far better than a hospital for diagnostics. It's about as likely as the phaser.
"Even when the system understands, which is hard enough, you still feel like a jackass doing it when you could just be pressing a number."
Feel free to start punching yourself now. Use a mirror if it makes you feel better.
You dislike voice autmomated systems. Not automated systems. Better would be humans capable of solving your problems. But most people prefer automated customer support because human customer support has been reduced to a sequence of scripts. At that point why waste time dealing with a human.
"For journalism in general: When are people going to realize that actual journalism, investigative reporting, and other well-researched pieces cost money?"
That's the wrong question. The proper question is: Can the newspapers make people pay directly for something they used to receive for free?
I think the answer is no.
Newspapers made the mistake of giving away for free (heavily subsidizing via advertising) something that was very costly and valuable (journalism) without telling their readers (product) assuming that it wouldn't change. Subscribers (readers) were led to believe that they were paying the true cost for the paper. Instead of addressing this issue from a position of strength they waited until there were plenty of adequate replacements and then threatened their loyal readers. Oops.
"Then some "activist investors" decided it wasn't profitable enough. They forced the chain that owned it to sell out completely, and this paper ended up with a chain whose main talent seems to be cost-cutting."
Excellent point. Many of the chains were also saddled with large debts as a result. Investors got rich while crippling newspapers.
"They are reported by real reporters, working in the actual locations where news is taking place -- so I'd say their knowledge of the subject matter is considerable."
Why do you assume that a reporter knows anything about the subject matter? I would assume the opposite. Considering how badly they mangle science reporting, why would they be any better in other subjects?
"Maybe the more pertinent question is, just what is it you have been reading that you've been calling "news"?"
As for what passes for "news" (even in the NYT), I think you answered your own question. In any case, I doubt that the NYT news is superior enough to merit the price for most. Although it still might be cost effective for the paper even if it isn't for the reader. We shall see.
"I'm more worried about the people that go to, say, local planning commission meetings."
What people? Where I live (close proximity to a State capital) they no longer go unless it is expected to be significant. I doubt they ever really did to any extent. Hell, their coverage of legislative action sucks.
"My fear is that the only "volunteer" coverage we'll see of that kind of thing is by people with an axe to grind and without necessarily a great grasp of the basics."
Already done. The best coverage is done by local access TV that records meetings and shows them on cable. Pretty much the best coverage of the legislature too. The only good coverage of local news seems to be done by the small weekly papers. They actually seem to have reporters at meetings.
I used to defend daily papers. But what little journalism and quality they had seems to have evaporated recently. It's pretty sad when I can get better information from a group of random people on the street or the internet than from a newspaper.
"...but I am curious how you think the U.S. could unilaterally cancel a debt, considering Amendment 14, Article 4."
For the same reason we could ignore any other part of the Constitution: Because we WANT to. Ultimately the Constitution (or any other set of laws/values/etc) has power because we give it power. If we are not willing to enforce the provisions in the document it doesn't matter what they are, it becomes just a piece of paper. Two data points (among many): 1. The Soviet Constitution provided far more rights to its citizens than did the US Constitution on paper. The reality was quite different. 2. Andrew Jackson violated an 1831 Supreme Court ruling. He correctly noted that the court had no means of enforcing the ruling. Congress certainly wasn't going to impeach him.
More to your point, based on recent legal "reasoning" by the executive branch they could say: We are at war, as commander in chief, I am authorized to cancel such debt. I doubt Congress would challenge the act since they seem to lack a spine. And the Courts would probably consider it a political question (we don't like controversy or work). It's only illegal if a court says so. And we all know how this country never does anything illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
"How about we get some cameras and record what happens, then in court we can just use the videos as evidence."
And why would we need video in court unless in adds to the officer testimony? We already have the officers sworn testimony. The video can be deleted after the officer writes the report. This is how it happens in interrogations already and it is perfectly legal. Why would it be any different for video.
The police have the best of both worlds in many cases. If the evidence backs them up, preserve it. If it is less than ideal, write it up and discard it because it isn't needed.
"I mean, I kind of agree with you, many people shouldn't be driving and we pay a 55,000 person a year toll in deaths from accidents. But what's the alternative?"
We could actually teach people how to drive. And actually evaluate them properly. I probably had a fairly rigorous drivers ed course and drivers exam (for the US) and it wasn't very good.
On the teaching front. Teach the rules, both written and unwritten (obey the speed limit but also don't impede traffic, for instance). Teach them how to actually control the car, especially in emergency situations. A basic driving school. Put them in real traffic and correct their errors. If they do something deliberately unsafe fail them and make them start over. Then evaluate them in a similar situation. The crappy drivers in this scenario would be better than most drivers today. People would take driving a bit more seriously because it would cost real money to get a license.
We could also enforce traffic laws differently. Penalize things that are actually dangerous rather than things that are easy to ticket.
"The google-model is opt-out-- "unless you specifically contact us and tell us not to, we now have your implied permission to use your work.""
But as opt-out is currenty LEGAL, I don't see a problem. Any author/copyright holder not currently aware of the option probably doesn't give a damn. This isn't some mouseprint clause in a 50 page cell phone contract. And considering the public good that will likely come of this (as compared to extending copyright) copyright holders/authors can frankly go fuck themselves.
"It's been going on for the 25 years I've been around and the government has made little or no effort to challenge it."
If an employee does not file a complaint, the government does not investigate. But once a complaint is filed, the DOL will happily look at similar employees in similar positions for the last few years. The damage a single complaint can do is staggering. The fact that so few are filed indicates that most employees may deserve the abuse they get....
"If the IRS told people what they owed, they would be removing this check."
Nice conspiracy theory. Totally wrong. The IRS is not allowed to do this because they are not allowed to compete with private industry by CONGRESS. That's right, competition is good until it threatens your business model. Millions of people waste money duplicating a process that could be done by the IRS at little to no additional cost. All hail the free market.
"Today, it is a secret battle between people reporting what other people should be reporting and paying on."
It's no secret. If a W2 or 1099 form is generated for you, it's also generated for the IRS.
"If the IRS pre-fills what the government knows about on the form, then that tells you what the government doesn't know about, and thus can safely be omitted."
This is a very bad assumption. What if the information gets corrected a couple of years down the road? You get a nice letter from the IRS that includes a couple of years of interest and penalties. If the amount is small enough they might even agree not to prosecute you. What a deal!
"But the government's not completely stupid -- if it was more beneficial, financially, to make the tax code simple, they would have done it years ago, IMHO."
The tax code isn't simple because WE don't want it so. That's right, you and me, want it complex. Well, not exactly. We want deductions for home loan interest, education, and our pet projects. So does everybody else. Congress obliges. Hence the massive and complex tax code.
A simple tax code would have modifications before the ink was dried. In the end, if people don't like the complex forms, they should stop using them. I've filled out many business related forms and found that they are only as complex as you want to make them. If you want to eke out the last penny of tax savings, go ahead. Just don't whine about the effort. Do you really think that if the tax code is simplified that you would pay less in taxes?
"Or the third party that guarantees their software is correct and backs it up with cash if it is wrong?"
That guarantee is only useful if you can actually get them to pay up. I think that you will find that they will try to weasel out of any mistake by claiming it was "user error". Of course the same goes for a non software based provider.
"The burden is always on the tax payer, not the IRS even if the IRS is the one that is at fault."
Always was and always will be. Just like every other law. Most people don't need a tax preparer, be it software or human. Just follow the directions and fill out the form. It will take less than an hour. Many millions can fill out the EZ form in minutes. Sure, the first time takes longer but the tax code doesn't change THAT much.
"That said, I wish we could go to a simpler system that means we wouldn't need to wrack or brains in frustration every year."
The system is only as complex as you make it. Most people can fill out an EZ form. Of course you will lose deductions. But that is your choice. Tax preparers make a killing by reinforcing the idea that filing tax forms are difficult. If people have difficulty filling out the common tax forms how can they possibly do their jobs?
"Maybe now the company will stop wasting money on projects with a shit ROI and return some of the profits to shareholders in the form of dividends."
I totally agree. Microsoft has been gouging investors for years.
"Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate?"
(Special) Interest Groups. Also known as the voters.
The tax code is used to influence and/or create policy. Want people to own homes? Then create an home loan interest tax deduction (loophole). Want to encourage long term stock ownership? Then create a capital gains tax deduction (loophole). Want to encourage X, Y, and Z. Then create create a deduction (loophole) for X, Y and Z.
Pretty soon any flat tax will look just like our current tax code. People don't really know what they want. At least they seem to vote in the opposite.
"Whatever they are, they need to at least be able to draw from a credit card or bank account, and need to be quick and hassle-free for the payer to set up and start using."
You answered your own question. Credit cards and bank accounts (debit cards). Businesses and charities don't seem to have a problem with them. Yes, they cost money to use and set up. They are also regulated.
Anyone who uses paypal to manage money that they aren't willing to lose is a moron.
"This is a very helpful diagnostic tool..."
Not based on the numbers. It might become a useful tool. But at present it cannot reliably differentiate between people with diagnosed PTSD and those without. Just imagine the results if you didn't already know the answer.
Wow. The numbers suck worse than I thought.
31 false positives!?!
Is it really cheaper (and better) to use an expensive test to screen and use specialists to weed out the false positives?
Is the military culture really that bad? Is the mental health services and people really that poor?
I realize that this is a brand new test but if it is this bad on a known population with existing symptoms it is not likely to be useful on people without symptoms or with newly emerging symptoms. Worthy of research but the reporters should be sent into combat with dowsing rods to detect mines. In short, all hype, no substance.
"...much like you (you do itemize, don't you?)."
Not like you and me. If you were to incorporate as an individual and operate like a corporation with respect to taxes, the IRS would present you with a pretty impressive tax bill during an audit.
"If people break the law, they go to jail."
No they don't. Only if they happen to be charged with a crime and are found guilty is there a chance they might go to jail. The more money you have to mount a defense (or the higher your socioeconomic status) the better off you are.
"If the CEO deliberately uses the company to kill people, he will go to jail."
Simply untrue. Companies routinely commit willful safety violations that result in worker deaths. No jail time. Companies routinely manufacture products they know will result in deaths. No jail time. It's very rare for people running a corporation to go to jail. The whole point of a corporation is liability avoidance. What works for economic liability also works for criminal liability. In simple terms, dumb criminals commit robbery. Smart ones work in banking.
Large companies have immense resources. Only in cases of great public outcry or clear crimes will the police want to take them on.
"So you mean voters are easily influenced by propaganda and are unable to consider the source?"
Yes. It's called advertising. Massive amounts of money are spent on it. Designed to override logic and reason.
The whole point of the propaganda is to prevent people from finding or considering the source. That's why you channel money through multiple PAC's-to obscure who actually funds the campaign. For instance, do you think Prop 8 in California would have done as well if every ad had stated it was sponsored in part by the Mormon Church?
"I'm not sure democracy is a good idea if merely allowing corporations to speak freely or donate money to politicians, when it's the individuals that ultimately do the election."
Do you also believe that the "free market" isn't such a good idea? Same concept. Except people purchase goods and services instead of voting based on advertising.
Or we could simply have reasonable government regulation. It really does work.
"...one of the problems with America these days,...and could care less about facts surrounding a situation."
Actually, that's always been the the case. Gossip has always been popular. Logic and reason does not come naturally. Journalism and muckraking has a very long history. It's just that the media has become really good at pandering to our base nature.
"There was a slashdot article yesterday about a sonic weapon that stunned at meters away and killed at feet away."
It's called a bomb. Been around for ages. Other names include: grenade, mine, etc.
"And they've had tasers for a while."
Which is like a phaser how exactly? A phaser is a silly idea anyway. A magical weapon that can stun creatures of various size at the flick of a switch without lasting effect but can also kill by disintegration. Is a lightweight, one handed weapon that rarely runs out of ammo and can be used as a massive bomb if needed.
"As far as medical tricorders, we're past that."
No, we are not. We are not remotely close. It's a hospital in a box. Actually it far better than a hospital for diagnostics. It's about as likely as the phaser.
"Even when the system understands, which is hard enough, you still feel like a jackass doing it when you could just be pressing a number."
Feel free to start punching yourself now. Use a mirror if it makes you feel better.
You dislike voice autmomated systems. Not automated systems. Better would be humans capable of solving your problems. But most people prefer automated customer support because human customer support has been reduced to a sequence of scripts. At that point why waste time dealing with a human.
"For journalism in general: When are people going to realize that actual journalism, investigative reporting, and other well-researched pieces cost money?"
That's the wrong question. The proper question is: Can the newspapers make people pay directly for something they used to receive for free?
I think the answer is no.
Newspapers made the mistake of giving away for free (heavily subsidizing via advertising) something that was very costly and valuable (journalism) without telling their readers (product) assuming that it wouldn't change. Subscribers (readers) were led to believe that they were paying the true cost for the paper.
Instead of addressing this issue from a position of strength they waited until there were plenty of adequate replacements and then threatened their loyal readers. Oops.
"You are getting your news second, third or fourth hand."
And you are too. Unless you are gathering it yourself, it is secondhand at best.
There is far more information out there than we can use. Filtering has to be done. Time is limited. He merely values different information than you.
"Then some "activist investors" decided it wasn't profitable enough. They forced the chain that owned it to sell out completely, and this paper ended up with a chain whose main talent seems to be cost-cutting."
Excellent point. Many of the chains were also saddled with large debts as a result. Investors got rich while crippling newspapers.
"They are reported by real reporters, working in the actual locations where news is taking place -- so I'd say their knowledge of the subject matter is considerable."
Why do you assume that a reporter knows anything about the subject matter? I would assume the opposite. Considering how badly they mangle science reporting, why would they be any better in other subjects?
"Maybe the more pertinent question is, just what is it you have been reading that you've been calling "news"?"
As for what passes for "news" (even in the NYT), I think you answered your own question. In any case, I doubt that the NYT news is superior enough to merit the price for most. Although it still might be cost effective for the paper even if it isn't for the reader. We shall see.
"I'm more worried about the people that go to, say, local planning commission meetings."
What people? Where I live (close proximity to a State capital) they no longer go unless it is expected to be significant. I doubt they ever really did to any extent. Hell, their coverage of legislative action sucks.
"My fear is that the only "volunteer" coverage we'll see of that kind of thing is by people with an axe to grind and without necessarily a great grasp of the basics."
Already done. The best coverage is done by local access TV that records meetings and shows them on cable. Pretty much the best coverage of the legislature too. The only good coverage of local news seems to be done by the small weekly papers. They actually seem to have reporters at meetings.
I used to defend daily papers. But what little journalism and quality they had seems to have evaporated recently. It's pretty sad when I can get better information from a group of random people on the street or the internet than from a newspaper.
"...but I am curious how you think the U.S. could unilaterally cancel a debt, considering Amendment 14, Article 4."
For the same reason we could ignore any other part of the Constitution: Because we WANT to. Ultimately the Constitution (or any other set of laws/values/etc) has power because we give it power. If we are not willing to enforce the provisions in the document it doesn't matter what they are, it becomes just a piece of paper. Two data points (among many): 1. The Soviet Constitution provided far more rights to its citizens than did the US Constitution on paper. The reality was quite different. 2. Andrew Jackson violated an 1831 Supreme Court ruling. He correctly noted that the court had no means of enforcing the ruling. Congress certainly wasn't going to impeach him.
More to your point, based on recent legal "reasoning" by the executive branch they could say: We are at war, as commander in chief, I am authorized to cancel such debt. I doubt Congress would challenge the act since they seem to lack a spine. And the Courts would probably consider it a political question (we don't like controversy or work). It's only illegal if a court says so. And we all know how this country never does anything illegal.