The point is that the law is to the point where you violate it in your daily activities. If you steal, lie, kill, or commit adultery in your daily activities then I think that being subject to punishment would be justice. However, the rest of us are doing normal activities in our daily routine; none of which we might consider to be illegal.
Isn't this concept applicable to laws in general? How many of you think that you could drive to work without making a single violation? Hell, when was the last time you got on the highway and the majority of the traffic wasn't going at least 5 mph over the speed limit? And depending on what state you live in, you have varying laws that you most likely break every day. The law is getting so intricate that few people understand exactly what it entails anymore. Ideally, the law should be easily understood; written in the vernacular. We shouldn't need lawyers to translate it for us.
There are more than a handful of videos and reports about officers using Tasers in situations that are not potentially dangerous. However, it is important to realize that individual departments decide when Taser use is appropriate, and the officers are held to this. The majority of police departments place the Taser at the same level as OC spray (Pepper spray) or above, which is logical because using OC spray is close quarters to other people means that everyone gets it, not just the suspect. Some departments state that it can only be used at the level where danger is imminent- a suspect is actively fighting an officer. This is the placement on the force continuum that I believe is the most proper. Finally, there are a handful of departments that have policies that place the Taser at the same level as using any sort of contact. This is where you get cases of people being Tased for non-compliance. Although I have not looked at the policies of the departments that these incidents come from, it is logical to believe that it is mostly from these departments. If any officer uses force contrary to department policy, serious reprimands follow, as they should.
Its not that 275 have been killed by Tasers, its that death followed the application in 275 instances. That death might have been from a drug overdose or other factor. Only the 30 cases where the Taser was listed as a contributing factor can be said to have caused the death in any way. I wouldn't doubt that the Taser was a contributing factor in these deaths, however considering the thousands of applications of the Taser, 30 deaths isn't all the bad. That however, is considering the amount of deaths caused from other less-than-lethal alternatives. Even OC spray (pepper spray) has caused deaths, and although I do not have any statistics in front of me, I would bet it is more than 30.
Those birds you speak of are doing something called "updrafting". Basically, they find a spot where warm air is rising from the ground and glide around in circles in order to attain a higher altitude using much less energy. You might see this over highways quite often, since the black pavement sometimes causes warm air drafts. I think the best demonstration of inefficient swarm behavior is when it arises in humans.
Yes, the X and millenial gen kids never had it so good. I would argue just the opposite. In my parent's time, one could simply graduate high school, get a factory job, and earn enough to support a wife and 2.3 children. Nowadays, you need at least a B.A. to have an equal footing, or more depending on what industry your in. And yes, we have more amenities today, but the 'keeping up with the Jones' mentality of yesteryear was quite pricey as well. The growing necessity of college is going to end up dividing up this country more into those that live well, and those that do not. I can only imagine what the next generation will have to face.
I'm curious if they'll be able to see the Apollo landing sites. I doubt that the Kaguya spacecraft can maintain a low enough orbit to enter the filming studio.
Its not that visuals aren't a good thing, but if game developers are going to put more time into a game, I rather it be developing gameplay than making it look nicer. Doom 3 was a very pretty game, but it got boring very quickly. Prey wasn't revolutionary in anyway when it came to graphics, but boy was that a fun game. But I guess thats the name of the game; if video games came out that had excellent gameplay, then people might keep playing those same games for years, without putting their money into the next really pretty game. Counterstrike is a perfect example of this, not pretty by any means, but it still has one of the largest, if not the largest, fanbase out of any games. This is why I've shied away from buying games anymore unless they are really the talk of the town. Gimme an emulator and General Chaos over Call of Duty X. Now get off my lawn!
I disagree with your intelligence scale analogy. Being intelligent or having the ability to learn is not as simple as that. My roommate in college was extremely computer savvy and would be labeled toward the 10 end of the scale by most, however had to call home because he needed help figuring out how to change his sheets. I happen to have a career where I work with my hands. I could teach you how to do my daily activities in a matter of minutes, but you would have to do them for the next 5 years to do them anywhere as near as well as I do. My kind of job however, can easily be replaced with either machines or a horde of Mexicans that can divvy my tasks up amongst themselves and get it done quicker, and more importantly, cheaper. By eliminating jobs, at the lower end of the spectrum on your scale, you create a large population that must be supported by the rest, who will not be able to live outside of government housing, and who are at higher risk of turning to crime. I believe that 'idle hands are the devil's tools' is especially applicable at this point in time. Also, don't forget that by freeing up a large portion of the population, a huge amount of competition for those top jobs is being created; you earn good money now, but falling wages will reach everybody. And also keep in mind that the majority of people never thought they could be replaced by machines or Mexicans.
Its also a possibility that they haven't impeached yet in order to keep their ratings high. By having controversial Republicans in office, it just makes the other side look better. This is how it works when politicians run on the platform "I'm not the other guy", its just makes your argument better if the other guy is disliked more.
The National Criminal Justice Reference Service funds a large amount of criminology/criminal justice research, and as a requirement, the author(s) must submit the article to the NCJRS so that it can be put online for the public. These articles are still published in journals, which are purchased by universities and the such. Why wouldn't a similar system work in the health field? I would think that if anything the health industry would find this particularly useful; easily accessible research would mean more educated health professionals, while most applicable research is simply ignored in the Criminal Justice system.
Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't even notice that. I change my earlier statement, they are trying to target the grandparents that have no knowledge about video games and poor eyesight.
I don't think that are really trying to fool video game players though. I think they are trying to target the parents that have no knowledge about video games aside from seeing a Wii a few times and know that they are popular. I am such a person, and aside from the "Wii" on the bottom of the real controller, would be unable to tell which one was the knockoff. Certainly if someone threw one of the knock offs in my hand, my first thought would be that it was a Wii controller without thinking twice about it. And with Walmart selling these, you only have to fool a small percentage of your customers to sell a whole ton of these things.
Just because the two variables are shown to be correlated does not mean that one caused the other. The study states that they used stratified sampling according to age, but did they control for age? I think I smell a spurious relationship here. In other words, age affects likelihood to download, age affects likelihood to buy cds, two different relationships. However, I didn't have enough time to read through the method thoroughly.
Does anyone recall that game, "America's Army" that was put out by the U.S. army not too long ago? I think that some portions of the government have realized that the video game playing population is probably more quick-thinking than the general population.
This reminds me of a training course I went through that involved a decide to shoot/not shoot scenario played out in what was basically a giant video screen (made for police training). The instructor told me that its common for people that have never handled a weapon before to have the same aim and reaction speed of those that have spent their entire lives handling weapons. That and they always shoot for the head.
If a blogger can be given the same rights as a journalist because of the content of his message, does that mean that media outlets - TV shows, newspapers, etc., can have it taken away if it is found that their content isn't really news?
I am currently working on my MA in Criminology and have heard this argument before. The fall in the crime rate does match up with the decision; as most offenders stop offending between the ages of 30 to 35. 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. Personally, I would put much more stock in the Roe v. Wade thing than the unleaded gas thing. 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.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that the law is to the point where you violate it in your daily activities. If you steal, lie, kill, or commit adultery in your daily activities then I think that being subject to punishment would be justice. However, the rest of us are doing normal activities in our daily routine; none of which we might consider to be illegal.
However, the effect is the same. Go about your daily activities as you normally would, and you are breaking the law.
Isn't this concept applicable to laws in general? How many of you think that you could drive to work without making a single violation? Hell, when was the last time you got on the highway and the majority of the traffic wasn't going at least 5 mph over the speed limit? And depending on what state you live in, you have varying laws that you most likely break every day. The law is getting so intricate that few people understand exactly what it entails anymore. Ideally, the law should be easily understood; written in the vernacular. We shouldn't need lawyers to translate it for us.
There are more than a handful of videos and reports about officers using Tasers in situations that are not potentially dangerous. However, it is important to realize that individual departments decide when Taser use is appropriate, and the officers are held to this. The majority of police departments place the Taser at the same level as OC spray (Pepper spray) or above, which is logical because using OC spray is close quarters to other people means that everyone gets it, not just the suspect. Some departments state that it can only be used at the level where danger is imminent- a suspect is actively fighting an officer. This is the placement on the force continuum that I believe is the most proper. Finally, there are a handful of departments that have policies that place the Taser at the same level as using any sort of contact. This is where you get cases of people being Tased for non-compliance. Although I have not looked at the policies of the departments that these incidents come from, it is logical to believe that it is mostly from these departments. If any officer uses force contrary to department policy, serious reprimands follow, as they should.
Its not that 275 have been killed by Tasers, its that death followed the application in 275 instances. That death might have been from a drug overdose or other factor. Only the 30 cases where the Taser was listed as a contributing factor can be said to have caused the death in any way. I wouldn't doubt that the Taser was a contributing factor in these deaths, however considering the thousands of applications of the Taser, 30 deaths isn't all the bad. That however, is considering the amount of deaths caused from other less-than-lethal alternatives. Even OC spray (pepper spray) has caused deaths, and although I do not have any statistics in front of me, I would bet it is more than 30.
Those birds you speak of are doing something called "updrafting". Basically, they find a spot where warm air is rising from the ground and glide around in circles in order to attain a higher altitude using much less energy. You might see this over highways quite often, since the black pavement sometimes causes warm air drafts. I think the best demonstration of inefficient swarm behavior is when it arises in humans.
Here ya go.
Its not that visuals aren't a good thing, but if game developers are going to put more time into a game, I rather it be developing gameplay than making it look nicer. Doom 3 was a very pretty game, but it got boring very quickly. Prey wasn't revolutionary in anyway when it came to graphics, but boy was that a fun game. But I guess thats the name of the game; if video games came out that had excellent gameplay, then people might keep playing those same games for years, without putting their money into the next really pretty game. Counterstrike is a perfect example of this, not pretty by any means, but it still has one of the largest, if not the largest, fanbase out of any games. This is why I've shied away from buying games anymore unless they are really the talk of the town. Gimme an emulator and General Chaos over Call of Duty X. Now get off my lawn!
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
I disagree with your intelligence scale analogy. Being intelligent or having the ability to learn is not as simple as that. My roommate in college was extremely computer savvy and would be labeled toward the 10 end of the scale by most, however had to call home because he needed help figuring out how to change his sheets. I happen to have a career where I work with my hands. I could teach you how to do my daily activities in a matter of minutes, but you would have to do them for the next 5 years to do them anywhere as near as well as I do. My kind of job however, can easily be replaced with either machines or a horde of Mexicans that can divvy my tasks up amongst themselves and get it done quicker, and more importantly, cheaper. By eliminating jobs, at the lower end of the spectrum on your scale, you create a large population that must be supported by the rest, who will not be able to live outside of government housing, and who are at higher risk of turning to crime. I believe that 'idle hands are the devil's tools' is especially applicable at this point in time. Also, don't forget that by freeing up a large portion of the population, a huge amount of competition for those top jobs is being created; you earn good money now, but falling wages will reach everybody. And also keep in mind that the majority of people never thought they could be replaced by machines or Mexicans.
Its also a possibility that they haven't impeached yet in order to keep their ratings high. By having controversial Republicans in office, it just makes the other side look better. This is how it works when politicians run on the platform "I'm not the other guy", its just makes your argument better if the other guy is disliked more.
The National Criminal Justice Reference Service funds a large amount of criminology/criminal justice research, and as a requirement, the author(s) must submit the article to the NCJRS so that it can be put online for the public. These articles are still published in journals, which are purchased by universities and the such. Why wouldn't a similar system work in the health field? I would think that if anything the health industry would find this particularly useful; easily accessible research would mean more educated health professionals, while most applicable research is simply ignored in the Criminal Justice system.
Clearly, researchers need to spend less time reading and more time watching crappy 80's sitcoms.
Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't even notice that. I change my earlier statement, they are trying to target the grandparents that have no knowledge about video games and poor eyesight.
I don't think that are really trying to fool video game players though. I think they are trying to target the parents that have no knowledge about video games aside from seeing a Wii a few times and know that they are popular. I am such a person, and aside from the "Wii" on the bottom of the real controller, would be unable to tell which one was the knockoff. Certainly if someone threw one of the knock offs in my hand, my first thought would be that it was a Wii controller without thinking twice about it. And with Walmart selling these, you only have to fool a small percentage of your customers to sell a whole ton of these things.
Just because the two variables are shown to be correlated does not mean that one caused the other. The study states that they used stratified sampling according to age, but did they control for age? I think I smell a spurious relationship here. In other words, age affects likelihood to download, age affects likelihood to buy cds, two different relationships. However, I didn't have enough time to read through the method thoroughly.
Does anyone recall that game, "America's Army" that was put out by the U.S. army not too long ago? I think that some portions of the government have realized that the video game playing population is probably more quick-thinking than the general population.
This reminds me of a training course I went through that involved a decide to shoot/not shoot scenario played out in what was basically a giant video screen (made for police training). The instructor told me that its common for people that have never handled a weapon before to have the same aim and reaction speed of those that have spent their entire lives handling weapons. That and they always shoot for the head.
If a blogger can be given the same rights as a journalist because of the content of his message, does that mean that media outlets - TV shows, newspapers, etc., can have it taken away if it is found that their content isn't really news?
I am currently working on my MA in Criminology and have heard this argument before. The fall in the crime rate does match up with the decision; as most offenders stop offending between the ages of 30 to 35. 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. Personally, I would put much more stock in the Roe v. Wade thing than the unleaded gas thing. 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.