Societies are built on the concept of managing and evaluating risk.
Our society has determined that the very slight risk required by a driver, who is presumably holding the steering wheel correctly, to lift one or two fingers off of that wheel, flick them slightly up and down, then put their fingers back on the wheel, is far outweighed by the positive benefits of communicating your driving intentions to other drivers on the road.
Conversely, we've now decided that the risk incurred by a driver being completely oblivious to everything that's going on around them as they're absorbed in fiddling with their phone/smartwatch/whatever is far outweighed by the mild positive benefit of that driver seeing what Kim Kardashian just posted, or finding out that their bestie can't even.
The key point the GP and I were making was that no, it isn't knowing and wilful without the appreciation for the fact that interactions with police in America are inherently more risky than they are in the rest of the western world.
I disagree. I think that calling the cops, in any country, and telling them 'there's an active hostage situation with somebody already killed' is going to guarantee an aggressive and armed response.
Hell, a lot of European countries have traditionally responded with military units in that situation, or dedicated counter-terrorism teams.
Look, all of human existence and society revolves around management of risk.
Driving is inherently dangerous, but that's a risk we've chosen to accept. Driving after dark is more dangerous, but again, a risk we've chosen to accept. Driving while tired? Now we're starting to get into 'yes, but you've made it more dangerous than it needed to be.' Driving while intoxicated? Now we're definitely into 'more dangerous than it needed to be, and you shouldn't have done that.'
Well, yes. Calling the cops on somebody is inherently dangerous. But not to the extent that it would involve 'a reckless disregard for human life.' Calling the cops on somebody and priming them for a hostage situation where you know, for a fact, there isn't one? That's not just reckless, that's knowing and willful.
Which is why the correct answer is that both the party that created the situation has performed a criminal act, and the party that, when placed in that situation, acted wrongly, has also performed a criminal act.
Dude, the teachings of Jesus literally involve gearing up for the Final Battle.
Let alone the parts about how marriage is a sin only slightly worse than fornicating, that children should disown their parents to become Christian, etc etc.
Just you wait until you find out the truth about dihydrogen monoxide, which is a deadly poison, incredibly strong solvent, lethal in it's gaseous form, shuts down your body upon sufficient exposure in it's solid form, and is both a 'by-product of many industries' and, as I've said 'is toxic.' Also found in cancer cells!
[blockquote]Not sure why we care about "humane".... they've proved they're not capable of confirming to the most basic of human behaviours.[/quote]
[p]But we are. That's why we are not them.[/p]
[p]I'm against the death penalty on grounds that the criminal justice system has an amazingly bad track record of being correct when it comes to finding guilt. If one could find perfectly accurate guilt, I would advocate for the death penalty in many circumstances.[/p]
The problem with quoting the 8th amendment is that it ignores the Fifth.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It clearly states that you can deprive somebody of life, with due process of law. If you claim that the constitution does not allow for execution, then you also claim that it doesn't allow for fines or imprisonment.
Now, I'm against the death penalty strictly on grounds that the American (and every other) criminal justice system makes far too many mistakes. But the Constitution clearly allows for the death penalty.
This isn't flamebait, this is 100 percent accurate. Your body is a biochemical machine, not a physics equation. Eating a handful of sugar is going to trigger different biochemical processes and hormones than eating a handful of celery. A high-celery diet won't turn you diabetic; a high-sugar diet sure as fuck will.
Yup, the whole joke is actually quite subversive, and actually means 'just because YOU think that something/somebody is useless, doesn't mean that it actually is.'
It's legal tender, which is to say, it's a valid *offer* of payment. They don't have to take it, but they can't accuse you of fraud for trying to pay with it.
You know, 'eat less, move more' as a method of voluntary weightloss, or an expression that human beings can be treated as basic physics test questions, has been discredited for decades. Turns out that if you're overweight, and simply cut calories, your metabolism will slow down to accommodate. You should read further into the current scientific understanding of such things, I suggest Dr. Jason Fung's "The Obesity Code" as an excellent starting off point, which references a lot of studies and what not for further examination."
You know, 'eat less, move more' has been known, for decades, to be incorrect. Cut down your sugar intake as much as possible, on the other hand, and watch your weight melt off and probably your diabeetus go away.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody doesn't remember the joy of fast busy, indicating that there were no available lines for your call to transit.
I don't think so, but I do believe there are requirements like 'can be completely controlled by voice.'
Excuse me, that should read 'is NOT outweighed by the mild positive benefit of that driver seeing what Kim Kardashian.....'
I know you're just being a troll, but:
Societies are built on the concept of managing and evaluating risk.
Our society has determined that the very slight risk required by a driver, who is presumably holding the steering wheel correctly, to lift one or two fingers off of that wheel, flick them slightly up and down, then put their fingers back on the wheel, is far outweighed by the positive benefits of communicating your driving intentions to other drivers on the road.
Conversely, we've now decided that the risk incurred by a driver being completely oblivious to everything that's going on around them as they're absorbed in fiddling with their phone/smartwatch/whatever is far outweighed by the mild positive benefit of that driver seeing what Kim Kardashian just posted, or finding out that their bestie can't even.
The alien equivalent of smallpox blankets?
I disagree. I think that calling the cops, in any country, and telling them 'there's an active hostage situation with somebody already killed' is going to guarantee an aggressive and armed response.
Hell, a lot of European countries have traditionally responded with military units in that situation, or dedicated counter-terrorism teams.
Look, all of human existence and society revolves around management of risk.
Driving is inherently dangerous, but that's a risk we've chosen to accept. Driving after dark is more dangerous, but again, a risk we've chosen to accept. Driving while tired? Now we're starting to get into 'yes, but you've made it more dangerous than it needed to be.' Driving while intoxicated? Now we're definitely into 'more dangerous than it needed to be, and you shouldn't have done that.'
Well, yes. Calling the cops on somebody is inherently dangerous. But not to the extent that it would involve 'a reckless disregard for human life.' Calling the cops on somebody and priming them for a hostage situation where you know, for a fact, there isn't one? That's not just reckless, that's knowing and willful.
Which is why the correct answer is that both the party that created the situation has performed a criminal act, and the party that, when placed in that situation, acted wrongly, has also performed a criminal act.
Rest in Peace, and my condolences to friends and family.
Dude, the teachings of Jesus literally involve gearing up for the Final Battle.
Let alone the parts about how marriage is a sin only slightly worse than fornicating, that children should disown their parents to become Christian, etc etc.
Just you wait until you find out the truth about dihydrogen monoxide, which is a deadly poison, incredibly strong solvent, lethal in it's gaseous form, shuts down your body upon sufficient exposure in it's solid form, and is both a 'by-product of many industries' and, as I've said 'is toxic.' Also found in cancer cells!
To be fair, industry reps did the same thing in live presentations about tetraethyl lead.
Execution isn't about punishment, it's about preventing recidivism. If it was about punishment, we'd have judicial torture.
[blockquote]Not sure why we care about "humane" .... they've proved they're not capable of confirming to the most basic of human behaviours.[/quote]
[p]But we are. That's why we are not them.[/p]
[p]I'm against the death penalty on grounds that the criminal justice system has an amazingly bad track record of being correct when it comes to finding guilt. If one could find perfectly accurate guilt, I would advocate for the death penalty in many circumstances.[/p]
The problem with quoting the 8th amendment is that it ignores the Fifth.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It clearly states that you can deprive somebody of life, with due process of law. If you claim that the constitution does not allow for execution, then you also claim that it doesn't allow for fines or imprisonment.
Now, I'm against the death penalty strictly on grounds that the American (and every other) criminal justice system makes far too many mistakes. But the Constitution clearly allows for the death penalty.
Going bald is bad genetics. Shaving your head is a bold style choice.
Huh. I thought part of anorexia treatment involved learning about healthy diets and eating.
This isn't flamebait, this is 100 percent accurate. Your body is a biochemical machine, not a physics equation. Eating a handful of sugar is going to trigger different biochemical processes and hormones than eating a handful of celery. A high-celery diet won't turn you diabetic; a high-sugar diet sure as fuck will.
Wouldn't this help your daughter make sure that she's getting enough calories?
Yup, the whole joke is actually quite subversive, and actually means 'just because YOU think that something/somebody is useless, doesn't mean that it actually is.'
He downloaded and sold somebody else's work. I'm not sure what more you'd need to know.
There was a previous Slashdot article on this guy, I think it was in the last few months, that has a lot more detail and discussion.
It's legal tender, which is to say, it's a valid *offer* of payment. They don't have to take it, but they can't accuse you of fraud for trying to pay with it.
Neil deGrasse Tyson has a chapter about this, and the coastline paradox, in Death by Black Hole.
Ok, let me switch to pedantic mode.
You know, 'eat less, move more' as a method of voluntary weightloss, or an expression that human beings can be treated as basic physics test questions, has been discredited for decades. Turns out that if you're overweight, and simply cut calories, your metabolism will slow down to accommodate. You should read further into the current scientific understanding of such things, I suggest Dr. Jason Fung's "The Obesity Code" as an excellent starting off point, which references a lot of studies and what not for further examination."
You know, 'eat less, move more' has been known, for decades, to be incorrect. Cut down your sugar intake as much as possible, on the other hand, and watch your weight melt off and probably your diabeetus go away.