Thanks for the reply. I hesitated to write it, expecting to be crucified:)
I would agree with your definition. I suspect the reason child porn law state an age of X is that it makes enforcement easier (black and white vs. your "wooliness").
That's the problem with laws - it's hard to write a good one, but easy to write a bad one....
"No mentally healthy person wants to watch child porn and nobody wants to give people the option."
Well that depends upon your definition of child porn. Some here have mentioned that Australia (IIRC) considers child porn to be children under 16. Other places it is 18.
The point of forbidding child porn is to prevent harm to children. People who don't/can't consent. If people under 18 can be tried as adults, then I would submit that line isn't as bright as you think it is...
The reality is, most people are sexually mature well before age 18 (physically at least). Humans tend to be drawn to sexually mature people, it's natural. The problem is how to prevent exploitation of the innocent - child porn laws tend to be arbitrary constructs which might not correspond to reality all the time.
Ah, but what is the criteria for setting the speed limit?
If it is based (in law) on the speed of x% of cars (often the 85th percentile), then the speed limit MUST be raised by LAW in your example. Interesting consequence of the law....
Of course, in an ideal world, one would set the speed limit at the upper safe limit for the road (I mean I have been on dangerous county/state highways with greater speed limits than interstates-if that doesn't destroy your faith in the way speed limits are set, nothing will).
"But if term limits are one term, then the endorsement of the party will become the defining factor."
I have to disagree. Money is most important (aka name recognition if you don't already have it), party affiliation is secondary (there are exceptions of course). The campaign finance laws (among other things) reduced the power of the party. Seemed good at the time to most but it also means the party platform and party candidates have little to do with one another...
Excellent point about voting though. People seem to forget that politicians can't buy votes and votes are the only thing that gets them elected. Raising money is merely a means to an end - attempting to get the most votes.
Remember, if you don't vote a politician isn't going to care about your opinions. At least over those who do!
Re:We've been seeing a lot of this "safe" nukes st
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
"cheap price tags"
What cheap price tags?!?
Anyway, the government committed to finding a waste disposal site, not industry. So don't blame them (directly at least). Waste disposal is primarily a POLITICAL problem. Oh, there are significant technical problems but those are solvable. If you don't believe this, look at the history of the site selection process where some of the most promising sites were excluded for non-technical reasons.
"And in the mean time the US it self breaks the terms of treaty by developing a new class of nuclear weapons..."
And what treaty would this be?
If you believe the Non-Proliferation (Or I don't think the word means what you think it means...) Treaty, you would be wrong. It prevents States that don't have nuclear weapons from developing them (if they signed it). Nothing says you can't develop new ones if you already have them...
Test Ban Treaty? Nope. Only if you test them. There is a reason we don't like certain countries to have supercomputers. They can be used to simulate nuclear weapon designs...
So how will reprocessing REDUCE the waste? It may reduce portions of the waste stream but it will generate much more radioactive material by VOLUME.
IIRC most of the (radioactive) material being cleaned up at military sites was due to reprocessing activities. Granted, for different purposes (weapons), but the concept is still the same....
So, lots of people drop dead when they exceed the speed limit, do they? Oh, they don't? So speed does NOT kill. Rapid deceleration during contact with hard surfaces tends to kill people. There is a difference.
Oh, and most states set speed limits at the 85th percentile (or are supposed to). So if the vast majority of people are speeding, then the speed limit is artificially low. By law.
Oh, and could I have proof that you operate your vehicle in a responsible manner? You wouldn't mind if we hooked your car up with a few cameras and a GPS unit, a breathalyzer, etc. Because I really doubt you always obey the speed limit everywhere along with EVERY other rule of the road at ALL TIMES. And if you don't, you are part of the problem according to your rant....
"You look through the cars in front of you looking for that high brake light to light up(that's why it's there). Give you that much more time to react in a safe manner. But do they teach these things? NOT!"
Why should they have to teach something that is common sense? (Okay, insert statement "Common sense isn't so common")
I mean I was taught to look well ahead of my vehicle in traffic ed. To anticipate problems. Etc. I think most people who tailgate don't look ahead. They look at a spot on the road near their vehicle and drive toward it until they encounter another vehicle or object... They know better, but do it anyway. Let's face it, nothing bad happens the vast majority of the time, so why would they change?(typical human behavior-see people and computers....)
Unless of course the car in front decelerates a LOT faster (say hitting a stationary object).
30 ft may not be much more distance, but it changes a sure hit to a possible miss. It also allows you to see (possibly) in front of the other vehicle to anticipate its braking. Many times I have had to follow closer than I liked (heavy traffic) but braked before a few cars in front of me because I saw the hazard. Of course, then I am cringing, wondering if the car tailgating me has a clue....:)
Really? What fantasy world do you live in? Becasue I would be interested in moving there...
I will get tailgated in the right lane doing 75 in a 65mph zone at times. When there are two empty or nearly empty lanes available for passing. Some (many?) morons tailgate because they only look a short distance ahead of them when they drive. These are the same type of poor drivers who sqeeze into the center lane (from an empty right lane) because they seem to only be comfortable driving if they have a pace car.... (Eegads, an empty lane, how do I drive!)
Well, people think that "speeding cameras" are a revenue tool (they are, mostly). Here, the insurance company is giving them a reduced rate (Company: Here's a shiny penny for your privacy. Customer: Droool, slobber, etc.)
Traffic cameras would have the same effect as police. Slow down around them, then speed up when out of range:) Of course, it would free the police up to spend time at the donut shop rather than spend time in rush hour traffic ticketing dangerous drivers....
Of course speeding and safe driving have little to do with one another.
"The cops will take note of where it happened, and note the posted speed limit."
And if my recent accident is any indication, will get major details incorrect.... and not care....
The police and courts don't give a @#$! about an accident (unless there was a fatality). My insurance company was the only party that seemed to car about what really happened. Of course due to the crappy job the police did certain facts will only be guessed at (they couldn't understand why I would complain about an incorrect police report-well gee, it was the basis of the ticket you wrote me and failed to write the other driver because you don't have a grasp of basic physics....) Oh, well:)
"When it comes to your insurance company, you have entered into that relationship voluntarily."
With a particular insurance company, yes. But if all of them do it, is it voluntary any longer? (currently a what-if scenario)
"However, this is only in respect to the government..."
Ah, yes. But the government mandates insurance (or proof of financial responsibility). If the government mandates something, implemented by corporations/private companies, are they not acting on behalf of the government? If so (and this certainly can be debated) then why should they have any more leeway than the government? I would argue that it is a very bad idea to let the government get around restrictions on its power by merely delegating those powers to non-government entities...
"With the limited choice(s) we have in politics, do we really have to wonder why 1/2 of Americans don't care enough to bother even casting a vote?"
With all due respect, I believe it is called laziness. If everyone who didn't vote decided to vote for a third party, a fictional character, themselves, etc., it would shake the two major parties to the core.
Why? Simple. If someone isn't going to vote, why would a politician give a damn what they think? Voting for someone, anyone, anything, would make the two established parties bend over backwards to "court" these voters. After all, if they vote, they might vote for us (or even worse, our opponent).
Hell, Ross Perot who didn't really have a chance in hell of being elected, considerably changed the political landscape. The major parties quickly adopted themes from his campaign. In doing so they better represented the public at large. Never underestimate the power of a third party, even one that doesn't have a chance of winning....
"Electronic voting is subject to much easier manipulation than paper ballots. Period. Anyone that has half a clue knows this."
Well, I guess I have more than half a clue. Because electronic voting is not necessarily easier to manipulate than paper ballots. Yes, for a certain subset of a population, yes, it is easier. But for others it is more difficult.
You probably think it is easier to manipulate because you know a lot about computers. But paper ballots are EASY to manipulate (examples include: poor layout (butterfly ballot), poor design (punch vs mark), misplacing them, etc.).
"But if they are so stupid that they can not mark a simple paper ballot correctly then they should not have their vote counted!"
I may agree in theory but there is thing called the Constitution that says if you are a citizen you are entitled to vote (with certain exceptions). After all, I could make up a test to exclude YOU from voting if I wanted to-even if you were a genius. We have been there and shouldn't go back.
"This is indeed a free speech issue, and we in France restrict it..."
Ah, at least someone willing to admit it.
How much free speech a country has really depends if people are able to speak about unpopular things without repercussion. If a country allows unpopular thoughts/ideas to be expressed in the form of speech, then I would say it has free speech.
If your description of France is correct, then France does not have "free speech".
Well, it may also happen at Universities that don't allow Professors to discipline students for cheating but rather require it to be reported to the University. That significantly increases the workload-especially in only likely cases. Of course those same Universities may give no guidance to adjunct/part-time Professors on how to deal with cheating either...
And having taught at a large public University, cheating is rampant. If you allow collaboration, it will devolve into cheating.
Actually, if universities are concerned about cheating, they should actually give more weight to enforcing their academic code. As in, actually encouraging its enforcement. But they could probably not stand the outcry (or the revenue loss.....)
I have taught at the university level (temporary position) and talked to others who have. At the the University in which I taught, I could not fail or give a student an "F" for cheating-I had to refer it to academic affairs. In most cases I only strongly suspected cheating so there wasn't much point. It was easier to give a poor grade-the grade they earned rather than confront them.
Currently a screener has to LOOK at the passport. They actually might have to use a few brain cells. They might find something isn't quite right and investigate further.
If the screener thinks the new passport is "secure" or the computer is always correct, they might (probably will) just let the computer think for them. The computer says the passport is valid, well, go right on through.
Biometric passports may speed up processing. Increase security, nope.
You know, I would opt for rates based on driving skills too.
But that is kind of like pigs learning to land. It isn't likely to happen:)
How exactly would one measure driving skills in a rigorous (quantitative) manner that would be cost effective? And even if you did that, only a portion of your insurance would be based on that anyway.
Of course, I never thought insurance was expensive for infrequent, safe drivers. If I rarely drove, I could lower my rates a LOT at the present time with my present insurance company by reducing my coverage.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the reply. I hesitated to write it, expecting to be crucified :)
I would agree with your definition. I suspect the reason child porn law state an age of X is that it makes enforcement easier (black and white vs. your "wooliness").
That's the problem with laws - it's hard to write a good one, but easy to write a bad one....
"No mentally healthy person wants to watch child porn and nobody wants to give people the option."
Well that depends upon your definition of child porn. Some here have mentioned that Australia (IIRC) considers child porn to be children under 16. Other places it is 18.
The point of forbidding child porn is to prevent harm to children. People who don't/can't consent. If people under 18 can be tried as adults, then I would submit that line isn't as bright as you think it is...
The reality is, most people are sexually mature well before age 18 (physically at least). Humans tend to be drawn to sexually mature people, it's natural. The problem is how to prevent exploitation of the innocent - child porn laws tend to be arbitrary constructs which might not correspond to reality all the time.
Ah, but what is the criteria for setting the speed limit?
If it is based (in law) on the speed of x% of cars (often the 85th percentile), then the speed limit MUST be raised by LAW in your example. Interesting consequence of the law....
Of course, in an ideal world, one would set the speed limit at the upper safe limit for the road (I mean I have been on dangerous county/state highways with greater speed limits than interstates-if that doesn't destroy your faith in the way speed limits are set, nothing will).
"But if term limits are one term, then the endorsement of the party will become the defining factor."
I have to disagree. Money is most important (aka name recognition if you don't already have it), party affiliation is secondary (there are exceptions of course). The campaign finance laws (among other things) reduced the power of the party. Seemed good at the time to most but it also means the party platform and party candidates have little to do with one another...
Excellent point about voting though. People seem to forget that politicians can't buy votes and votes are the only thing that gets them elected. Raising money is merely a means to an end - attempting to get the most votes.
Remember, if you don't vote a politician isn't going to care about your opinions. At least over those who do!
"cheap price tags"
What cheap price tags?!?
Anyway, the government committed to finding a waste disposal site, not industry. So don't blame them (directly at least). Waste disposal is primarily a POLITICAL problem. Oh, there are significant technical problems but those are solvable. If you don't believe this, look at the history of the site selection process where some of the most promising sites were excluded for non-technical reasons.
"And in the mean time the US it self breaks the terms of treaty by developing a new class of nuclear weapons..."
And what treaty would this be?
If you believe the Non-Proliferation (Or I don't think the word means what you think it means...) Treaty, you would be wrong. It prevents States that don't have nuclear weapons from developing them (if they signed it). Nothing says you can't develop new ones if you already have them...
Test Ban Treaty? Nope. Only if you test them. There is a reason we don't like certain countries to have supercomputers. They can be used to simulate nuclear weapon designs...
Any other treaties? I'm waiting...
So how will reprocessing REDUCE the waste? It may reduce portions of the waste stream but it will generate much more radioactive material by VOLUME.
IIRC most of the (radioactive) material being cleaned up at military sites was due to reprocessing activities. Granted, for different purposes (weapons), but the concept is still the same....
So, lots of people drop dead when they exceed the speed limit, do they? Oh, they don't? So speed does NOT kill. Rapid deceleration during contact with hard surfaces tends to kill people. There is a difference.
Oh, and most states set speed limits at the 85th percentile (or are supposed to). So if the vast majority of people are speeding, then the speed limit is artificially low. By law.
Oh, and could I have proof that you operate your vehicle in a responsible manner? You wouldn't mind if we hooked your car up with a few cameras and a GPS unit, a breathalyzer, etc. Because I really doubt you always obey the speed limit everywhere along with EVERY other rule of the road at ALL TIMES. And if you don't, you are part of the problem according to your rant....
"You look through the cars in front of you looking for that high brake light to light up(that's why it's there). Give you that much more time to react in a safe manner. But do they teach these things? NOT!"
Why should they have to teach something that is common sense? (Okay, insert statement "Common sense isn't so common")
I mean I was taught to look well ahead of my vehicle in traffic ed. To anticipate problems. Etc. I think most people who tailgate don't look ahead. They look at a spot on the road near their vehicle and drive toward it until they encounter another vehicle or object... They know better, but do it anyway. Let's face it, nothing bad happens the vast majority of the time, so why would they change?(typical human behavior-see people and computers....)
Unless of course the car in front decelerates a LOT faster (say hitting a stationary object).
:)
30 ft may not be much more distance, but it changes a sure hit to a possible miss. It also allows you to see (possibly) in front of the other vehicle to anticipate its braking. Many times I have had to follow closer than I liked (heavy traffic) but braked before a few cars in front of me because I saw the hazard. Of course, then I am cringing, wondering if the car tailgating me has a clue....
Really? What fantasy world do you live in? Becasue I would be interested in moving there...
I will get tailgated in the right lane doing 75 in a 65mph zone at times. When there are two empty or nearly empty lanes available for passing. Some (many?) morons tailgate because they only look a short distance ahead of them when they drive. These are the same type of poor drivers who sqeeze into the center lane (from an empty right lane) because they seem to only be comfortable driving if they have a pace car.... (Eegads, an empty lane, how do I drive!)
Well, people think that "speeding cameras" are a revenue tool (they are, mostly). Here, the insurance company is giving them a reduced rate (Company: Here's a shiny penny for your privacy. Customer: Droool, slobber, etc.)
:) Of course, it would free the police up to spend time at the donut shop rather than spend time in rush hour traffic ticketing dangerous drivers....
Traffic cameras would have the same effect as police. Slow down around them, then speed up when out of range
Of course speeding and safe driving have little to do with one another.
"The cops will take note of where it happened, and note the posted speed limit."
:)
And if my recent accident is any indication, will get major details incorrect.... and not care....
The police and courts don't give a @#$! about an accident (unless there was a fatality). My insurance company was the only party that seemed to car about what really happened. Of course due to the crappy job the police did certain facts will only be guessed at (they couldn't understand why I would complain about an incorrect police report-well gee, it was the basis of the ticket you wrote me and failed to write the other driver because you don't have a grasp of basic physics....) Oh, well
"5% to 25%. My annual auto insurance is $320 or so. 5% -> $16."
It will probably be less. I doubt the discount will be applied to all portions of your insurance (kind of like airbag discounts).
"When it comes to your insurance company, you have entered into that relationship voluntarily."
With a particular insurance company, yes. But if all of them do it, is it voluntary any longer? (currently a what-if scenario)
"However, this is only in respect to the government..."
Ah, yes. But the government mandates insurance (or proof of financial responsibility). If the government mandates something, implemented by corporations/private companies, are they not acting on behalf of the government? If so (and this certainly can be debated) then why should they have any more leeway than the government? I would argue that it is a very bad idea to let the government get around restrictions on its power by merely delegating those powers to non-government entities...
Thank you.
At least one person who understands....
"With the limited choice(s) we have in politics, do we really have to wonder why 1/2 of Americans don't care enough to bother even casting a vote?"
With all due respect, I believe it is called laziness. If everyone who didn't vote decided to vote for a third party, a fictional character, themselves, etc., it would shake the two major parties to the core.
Why? Simple. If someone isn't going to vote, why would a politician give a damn what they think? Voting for someone, anyone, anything, would make the two established parties bend over backwards to "court" these voters. After all, if they vote, they might vote for us (or even worse, our opponent).
Hell, Ross Perot who didn't really have a chance in hell of being elected, considerably changed the political landscape. The major parties quickly adopted themes from his campaign. In doing so they better represented the public at large. Never underestimate the power of a third party, even one that doesn't have a chance of winning....
"Electronic voting is subject to much easier manipulation than paper ballots. Period. Anyone that has half a clue knows this."
Well, I guess I have more than half a clue. Because electronic voting is not necessarily easier to manipulate than paper ballots. Yes, for a certain subset of a population, yes, it is easier. But for others it is more difficult.
You probably think it is easier to manipulate because you know a lot about computers. But paper ballots are EASY to manipulate (examples include: poor layout (butterfly ballot), poor design (punch vs mark), misplacing them, etc.).
"But if they are so stupid that they can not mark a simple paper ballot correctly then they should not have their vote counted!"
I may agree in theory but there is thing called the Constitution that says if you are a citizen you are entitled to vote (with certain exceptions). After all, I could make up a test to exclude YOU from voting if I wanted to-even if you were a genius. We have been there and shouldn't go back.
"This is indeed a free speech issue, and we in France restrict it..."
Ah, at least someone willing to admit it.
How much free speech a country has really depends if people are able to speak about unpopular things without repercussion. If a country allows unpopular thoughts/ideas to be expressed in the form of speech, then I would say it has free speech.
If your description of France is correct, then France does not have "free speech".
Well, it may also happen at Universities that don't allow Professors to discipline students for cheating but rather require it to be reported to the University. That significantly increases the workload-especially in only likely cases. Of course those same Universities may give no guidance to adjunct/part-time Professors on how to deal with cheating either...
And having taught at a large public University, cheating is rampant. If you allow collaboration, it will devolve into cheating.
Actually, if universities are concerned about cheating, they should actually give more weight to enforcing their academic code. As in, actually encouraging its enforcement. But they could probably not stand the outcry (or the revenue loss.....)
I have taught at the university level (temporary position) and talked to others who have. At the the University in which I taught, I could not fail or give a student an "F" for cheating-I had to refer it to academic affairs. In most cases I only strongly suspected cheating so there wasn't much point. It was easier to give a poor grade-the grade they earned rather than confront them.
Heck, it could reduce security.
Why?
Currently a screener has to LOOK at the passport. They actually might have to use a few brain cells. They might find something isn't quite right and investigate further.
If the screener thinks the new passport is "secure" or the computer is always correct, they might (probably will) just let the computer think for them. The computer says the passport is valid, well, go right on through.
Biometric passports may speed up processing. Increase security, nope.
Of course in order to dig it up you have to know WHERE it is (it's in the swamp somewhere isn't very useful...)
"If I remember rightly, they have also left it there rather than disturb it and possibly set it off."
No, it was left there because it couldn't be FOUND.
I guess Ooops would be an understatement....
You know, I would opt for rates based on driving skills too.
:)
But that is kind of like pigs learning to land. It isn't likely to happen
How exactly would one measure driving skills in a rigorous (quantitative) manner that would be cost effective? And even if you did that, only a portion of your insurance would be based on that anyway.
Of course, I never thought insurance was expensive for infrequent, safe drivers. If I rarely drove, I could lower my rates a LOT at the present time with my present insurance company by reducing my coverage.