I would agree if this was available to all people, however I would assume that this would be only available to people with the money for it. So, not only does the upper crust of society have the best resources at their disposal, but they are now capable of being genetically superior? Should only those in the bottom 99% be the only ones stricken with the horrible conditions that you mentioned?
The more stipulations that you place on sex offenders, the more incentive there is for the sex offender to simply not keep up with their registration. Individual states vary, but as far as I know, it is still up to the sex offender to provide their photo, their current address, place of employment, etc. Many simply move to another state and risk the arrest for not complying with offender registry laws. I don't think that anyone would ever stand up against more rules for sex offenders, and I think thats the point here; pick an easy target to make your enemy. But, I am unsure whether this bill would provide more or less public safety.
Also, "sexual offenders" and "sexual predators" are two different things. The terms are not interchangeable.
Currently, money and property that is discovered by the Federal Government is seized. A great deal of money from drugs is already being sent to the government.
Coca is not suited for growth in the U.S. If cocaine was legalized for example, the Columbian Government would find a great deal of their funding cut off, as it is provided by the U.S. What would result is that yes, the price of production would drop. However, if the production is still done in other countries, then this does not benefit the U.S.
Also, producing Cocaine is a pretty intense process that requires lots of Coca; if legalized it would still be much more expensive than aspirin for that reason.
Well, this is assuming that drug farms would pop up throughout the states. I have never harvested Coca myself, but I am assuming that it would be quite difficult raising a crop in the U.S. that is best suited for conditions in Central or South America. And opium poppies, even if farmed in the U.S., could never approach the quantity of poppies grown in the Opium Belt in Asia.
If drug farms did spring up in the states, the only major drugs grown would be Marijuana and LSD. These two drugs are already largely produced in the U.S., so there would be no substantial change in where the drugs are coming from.
I don't see how legalizing these two things would bring more money into the country. Aside from marijuana and LSD, most drugs are smuggled into the country, and money leaves the country. Prostitution is a service and we as Americans cannot get rich by screwing each other.
The only plausible way to make money from legalizing drugs and prostitution would be if the U.S. manufactured and exported the drugs, or if foreign travelers came into The States to spend their money on prostitutes.
Additionally, legalizing all drugs (if doing so increased the demand) and not producing them in The States would stimulate the economies of major drug exporting nations; Columbia, Mexico, Myanmar, Afghanistan, not that of the U.S.
I understand that not waging the war on drugs would provide some savings, but I fail to see how we would be swimming in cash as a result.
I completely agree that using lasers would eliminate innocent deaths by eliminating all those factors that effect bullets. However, wouldn't this be offset by the range of the laser weapons? Bullets, after some distance, do drop to the ground. Essentially, couldn't a "stray bullet" from a laser be deadly much farther past the target in cases of misses?
I agree that Vista has earned itself a pretty bad rap. But, I don't think MS is targeting the kind of users that have that much computer experience. It seems that MS is targeting users that sparingly use a computer, but have shied away from upgrading because they might have heard a few bad things. If MS wanted to improve Vista's reputation amongst users that sit around and talk about software, then they would put the $300 million into fixing the OS rather than hiring some retired sitcom star.
Well, if "policing" my traffic included targeting specific traffic and cutting back solely on that (by forging packets mind you), then I would want the government to step in.
If the USPS told me I can only send X amount of letters a month that's fine and dandy. If they are looking for specific letters I send and are manipulating their contents to save on operating costs, then I would have a major issue.
because cops all have a tendency to believe that they are always right and the suspect is always wrong.
Doesn't everyone have a tendency to think they're right? I would think that police are just as guilty of this as everyone else is.
Police departments routinely have assholes sign up, simply because they want to be a professional asshole for the rest of their lives.
I have worked with law enforcement for many years and have not found this to be the case. I would like to see proof behind this assertion.
Is it because a good portion of them are inept, abusive, and generally incompetent? Thinking men know that might does not make right, police officers are *rarely* thinking men.
Once again, I would like to see proof that "a good portion" of officers rarely think and are abusive and incompetent.
I am not saying that every officer out there is an angel or is a shining example of society, but you cannot base your opinion of all police officers based on a handful of your own experiences or on a handful of publicized accounts of police brutality.
I understand why someone would want to film an interaction with police, especially since this line of thinking is so popular. However its obvious that your frustration is dominating your view of the subject.
Seriously, you have no fucking idea.
I seriously have no fucking idea how this came to be modded +5 Insightful
If artificial intelligence ever gets to the point where it is greater than humans, won't it be capable of producing even better AI, which would in turn create even better AI, and so on? If AI does reach the level of human intelligence, and eventually surpasses it, can we expect an explosion in technology and other sciences as a result?
Only those who are currently affiliated with a university have a right to understand how the world works? Correct. Unless your not affiliated with a university. Then your wrong.
I study criminology and a large portion of studies that are found in scholarly journals are funded by government grants. A stipulation to getting that grant money is that the study is offered online for free. What often happens is that the same author writes two papers using the same data. The two papers will be about the same study, will arrive at the same conclusion, but the paper offered for free simply doesn't state that it is peer reviewed.
I have started opening all junk mail and putting everything into the business reply envelope, never filled out of course. Since the company has to pay to receive their garbage back, your junk mail will decrease noticeably. If that doesn't work, throw in some other goodies into the envelope; an apple slice, some used tissues, a hefty amount of printer toner, you get the idea. I still get some junk mail from a couple of credit card companies, but nowhere near what I used to receive.
I also doubt that Smith & Wesson produce guns simply for their love of firearms. I won't reject your argument; of course if there was no money to be had they would quickly disappear. However this line of reasoning can be made toward numerous other companies with negative outcomes that are many times worse.
IANAL, but I believe that the intention of allowing searches incident to arrest is to prevent the suspect from accessing a weapon or destroying evidence. Since you cannot store a mac-10 in your iphone, this should be ruled out. So, the only logical time when an iphone or similar device can be searched is if the arrest is for a crime that can be linked to some sort of electronic device; child pornography, harassment, voyeurism, etc. If I am being arrested for starting a fight in a bar, there is no reason to go through my digital property, right?
I had watched a documentary about this technology some time ago. This technology was applied to Hitler's home videos which lacked audio. Its pretty interesting but runs about 45 minutes long. Here's the video for those that are interested.
My guess is no. 10,000 phrases might sound like alot, but I can imagine that they would get used up very quickly. Sounds like the only application for this is for police to give commands. With the speech recognition software, not only would only a handful of people be able to use it, but they would also have to know the limits of the device, as far as how fast you can talk, what extent of a vocabulary it has, and so on.
I believe it is dangerous to some degree, but I don't think it necessarily applies here. I believe that companies should refrain from outsourcing jobs. So does keeping jobs in the U.S. at the expense of products fall under "dangerous" since I believe this for patriotic reasons?
Since gelatin is derived from pork (or at least used to be), does this mean that we'll soon see ice cream labeled as "Pork free for Passover!"? I really would love to see that.
I'm just saying that if conditions happen to move to "more agressive", due to a famine... I would argue that the pound-packing, overweight hoards of today are much more prepared for a famine than are others It really is only a matter of time before the next major famine strikes, at which time homo-sapiens will be wiped out and homo-humongous will branch off on the evolutionary tree.
There was a study done on the delinquency rates of wanted versus unwanted children, and it was found that a difference did exist, however it was not significant enough to explain the national drop in the crime rate. To explain the national drop, there would more than likely be several factors. A few might be the growing prison population (most crime is committed by a handful of offenders), the increased funding to police as a result of the war on drugs (if this were true, we should see an increase in crime soon due to a shift to homeland security), and the growing hysteria over crime (fear of crime makes people take more precautions). Although, to say that a single court decision or a switch to unleaded gas was the culprit is oversimplifying the process.
For anyone who wants to check out the article I mentioned, its - "Has Roe v. Wade Reduced U.S. Crime Rates?: Examining the Link Between Mothers' Pregnancy Intentions and Children's Later Involvement in Law-Violating Behavior" by Hay & Evans. Sorry, I couldn't find a link to a pdf file.
Am I the only one that gets some sort of happiness from the RIAA's obvious abuse of copyright laws? The more and more they are able to stretch them, the more and more obvious it becomes that the whole deal needs an overhaul. At one point lawmakers are gonna put their foot down and make sure this comes to an end, and that it can never happen again, right?...........right?
All those laws you listed fall under the same chapter in the penal code, at least for my state and all other states that I have looked at. When I said "laws in general", I meant just that; the overall body of laws. Sure, theres more than a few individual laws that are quite difficult to violate in your daily activities, but I didn't see it necessary to list those that were either included or excluded in my argument.
Slashdot Mirror
I would agree if this was available to all people, however I would assume that this would be only available to people with the money for it. So, not only does the upper crust of society have the best resources at their disposal, but they are now capable of being genetically superior? Should only those in the bottom 99% be the only ones stricken with the horrible conditions that you mentioned?
The more stipulations that you place on sex offenders, the more incentive there is for the sex offender to simply not keep up with their registration. Individual states vary, but as far as I know, it is still up to the sex offender to provide their photo, their current address, place of employment, etc. Many simply move to another state and risk the arrest for not complying with offender registry laws. I don't think that anyone would ever stand up against more rules for sex offenders, and I think thats the point here; pick an easy target to make your enemy. But, I am unsure whether this bill would provide more or less public safety. Also, "sexual offenders" and "sexual predators" are two different things. The terms are not interchangeable.
Currently, money and property that is discovered by the Federal Government is seized. A great deal of money from drugs is already being sent to the government.
Coca is not suited for growth in the U.S. If cocaine was legalized for example, the Columbian Government would find a great deal of their funding cut off, as it is provided by the U.S. What would result is that yes, the price of production would drop. However, if the production is still done in other countries, then this does not benefit the U.S.
Also, producing Cocaine is a pretty intense process that requires lots of Coca; if legalized it would still be much more expensive than aspirin for that reason.
Well, this is assuming that drug farms would pop up throughout the states. I have never harvested Coca myself, but I am assuming that it would be quite difficult raising a crop in the U.S. that is best suited for conditions in Central or South America. And opium poppies, even if farmed in the U.S., could never approach the quantity of poppies grown in the Opium Belt in Asia.
If drug farms did spring up in the states, the only major drugs grown would be Marijuana and LSD. These two drugs are already largely produced in the U.S., so there would be no substantial change in where the drugs are coming from.
I don't see how legalizing these two things would bring more money into the country. Aside from marijuana and LSD, most drugs are smuggled into the country, and money leaves the country. Prostitution is a service and we as Americans cannot get rich by screwing each other. The only plausible way to make money from legalizing drugs and prostitution would be if the U.S. manufactured and exported the drugs, or if foreign travelers came into The States to spend their money on prostitutes. Additionally, legalizing all drugs (if doing so increased the demand) and not producing them in The States would stimulate the economies of major drug exporting nations; Columbia, Mexico, Myanmar, Afghanistan, not that of the U.S.
I understand that not waging the war on drugs would provide some savings, but I fail to see how we would be swimming in cash as a result.
I completely agree that using lasers would eliminate innocent deaths by eliminating all those factors that effect bullets. However, wouldn't this be offset by the range of the laser weapons? Bullets, after some distance, do drop to the ground. Essentially, couldn't a "stray bullet" from a laser be deadly much farther past the target in cases of misses?
I agree that Vista has earned itself a pretty bad rap. But, I don't think MS is targeting the kind of users that have that much computer experience. It seems that MS is targeting users that sparingly use a computer, but have shied away from upgrading because they might have heard a few bad things. If MS wanted to improve Vista's reputation amongst users that sit around and talk about software, then they would put the $300 million into fixing the OS rather than hiring some retired sitcom star.
Well, if "policing" my traffic included targeting specific traffic and cutting back solely on that (by forging packets mind you), then I would want the government to step in. If the USPS told me I can only send X amount of letters a month that's fine and dandy. If they are looking for specific letters I send and are manipulating their contents to save on operating costs, then I would have a major issue.
because cops all have a tendency to believe that they are always right and the suspect is always wrong.
Doesn't everyone have a tendency to think they're right? I would think that police are just as guilty of this as everyone else is.
Police departments routinely have assholes sign up, simply because they want to be a professional asshole for the rest of their lives.
I have worked with law enforcement for many years and have not found this to be the case. I would like to see proof behind this assertion.
Is it because a good portion of them are inept, abusive, and generally incompetent? Thinking men know that might does not make right, police officers are *rarely* thinking men.
Once again, I would like to see proof that "a good portion" of officers rarely think and are abusive and incompetent. I am not saying that every officer out there is an angel or is a shining example of society, but you cannot base your opinion of all police officers based on a handful of your own experiences or on a handful of publicized accounts of police brutality. I understand why someone would want to film an interaction with police, especially since this line of thinking is so popular. However its obvious that your frustration is dominating your view of the subject.
Seriously, you have no fucking idea.
I seriously have no fucking idea how this came to be modded +5 Insightful
If artificial intelligence ever gets to the point where it is greater than humans, won't it be capable of producing even better AI, which would in turn create even better AI, and so on? If AI does reach the level of human intelligence, and eventually surpasses it, can we expect an explosion in technology and other sciences as a result?
I study criminology and a large portion of studies that are found in scholarly journals are funded by government grants. A stipulation to getting that grant money is that the study is offered online for free. What often happens is that the same author writes two papers using the same data. The two papers will be about the same study, will arrive at the same conclusion, but the paper offered for free simply doesn't state that it is peer reviewed.
I have started opening all junk mail and putting everything into the business reply envelope, never filled out of course. Since the company has to pay to receive their garbage back, your junk mail will decrease noticeably. If that doesn't work, throw in some other goodies into the envelope; an apple slice, some used tissues, a hefty amount of printer toner, you get the idea. I still get some junk mail from a couple of credit card companies, but nowhere near what I used to receive.
So, what they are saying is that copying a CD deserves more of a punishment than does taking a CD from somebody by force?
I also doubt that Smith & Wesson produce guns simply for their love of firearms. I won't reject your argument; of course if there was no money to be had they would quickly disappear. However this line of reasoning can be made toward numerous other companies with negative outcomes that are many times worse.
IANAL, but I believe that the intention of allowing searches incident to arrest is to prevent the suspect from accessing a weapon or destroying evidence. Since you cannot store a mac-10 in your iphone, this should be ruled out. So, the only logical time when an iphone or similar device can be searched is if the arrest is for a crime that can be linked to some sort of electronic device; child pornography, harassment, voyeurism, etc. If I am being arrested for starting a fight in a bar, there is no reason to go through my digital property, right?
I had watched a documentary about this technology some time ago. This technology was applied to Hitler's home videos which lacked audio. Its pretty interesting but runs about 45 minutes long. Here's the video for those that are interested.
My guess is no. 10,000 phrases might sound like alot, but I can imagine that they would get used up very quickly. Sounds like the only application for this is for police to give commands. With the speech recognition software, not only would only a handful of people be able to use it, but they would also have to know the limits of the device, as far as how fast you can talk, what extent of a vocabulary it has, and so on.
I believe it is dangerous to some degree, but I don't think it necessarily applies here. I believe that companies should refrain from outsourcing jobs. So does keeping jobs in the U.S. at the expense of products fall under "dangerous" since I believe this for patriotic reasons?
Since gelatin is derived from pork (or at least used to be), does this mean that we'll soon see ice cream labeled as "Pork free for Passover!"? I really would love to see that.
There was a study done on the delinquency rates of wanted versus unwanted children, and it was found that a difference did exist, however it was not significant enough to explain the national drop in the crime rate. To explain the national drop, there would more than likely be several factors. A few might be the growing prison population (most crime is committed by a handful of offenders), the increased funding to police as a result of the war on drugs (if this were true, we should see an increase in crime soon due to a shift to homeland security), and the growing hysteria over crime (fear of crime makes people take more precautions). Although, to say that a single court decision or a switch to unleaded gas was the culprit is oversimplifying the process. For anyone who wants to check out the article I mentioned, its - "Has Roe v. Wade Reduced U.S. Crime Rates?: Examining the Link Between Mothers' Pregnancy Intentions and Children's Later Involvement in Law-Violating Behavior" by Hay & Evans. Sorry, I couldn't find a link to a pdf file.
Am I the only one that gets some sort of happiness from the RIAA's obvious abuse of copyright laws? The more and more they are able to stretch them, the more and more obvious it becomes that the whole deal needs an overhaul. At one point lawmakers are gonna put their foot down and make sure this comes to an end, and that it can never happen again, right?...........right?
All those laws you listed fall under the same chapter in the penal code, at least for my state and all other states that I have looked at. When I said "laws in general", I meant just that; the overall body of laws. Sure, theres more than a few individual laws that are quite difficult to violate in your daily activities, but I didn't see it necessary to list those that were either included or excluded in my argument.