Whats next will I have to carry insulin because I may run into a diebetic that went into shock, or will I have to build wheelchair accibile ramps at my house. Maybe I'll have to write ym secnitnes sdrawkcab for the people who are dyslesic.
The point I'm making is that you can not expect people to change their lives because you have a disability. Personally I think he is full of *&^% but who knows this may be a real disability. If so there are things he can do to minimize or negate all signals into his house. A simple layer or two of alumimim foil will do as a start.
Yes that would cut down on crime, but like you said there is a whole slue of issues in this area. I do believe there is a clear cut way to go from the "ghetto to beverly hills". Its long takes hard work and is not always guarrenteed. It's called education. One of the problems is that the youth today in general have an instant gratifacion complex. I want it and i want it now. Much of the inequallity is brought one by themselves (Not all but most)
"If it was easier for you to get out of the ghetto would you agree that the need for crime to get out of the ghetto decrease?" I not quite sure what your asking here.
Just because someone was busted for theft and had drugs on them does not mean that they were stealing for drugs. I was caught a teen shoplifting, I stole because I wanted something and did not have the money for it at the time. I also had a small bit of weed in my pocket. I can tell you that I did not steal to support any habit, I stole out of stupidity.
Unfortuntley the root cause of this issue will never be fixed. Not saying that it can't be fixed but it won't be fixed. Lets take the war on drugs for example, Since the begining we have spent well over 100 trillion (adjusted for inflation) on a losing war. No matter what safe guards we put in place the crimanials can get around it. Take a look at places over seas that have legalized most all drugs. They do not suffer from the same addictions that we as country do. Their rate is far lower. I do not believe that drugs are the root cause of our issues with crime yet I agree that you can trace the majority of crimes back to drugs. The root cause is inequality, the i want what you have syndrome, I'm not saying it's right or even fairbut that is the underlying issue here. People see shows like Cribs, and lifestyles of the rich and famous, etc... and they say that I want that is this is how I can get it now. They feel as though they are treated unfairly because they deserve that lifestlye and dont have it.
You are right that most crime is poor on poor.
Drugs are not an escape from poverty they are an escape from reality.
Most theft is not to get drugs it is to do simple things like eat. How ever I will say that most crimes can be traced back to drugs.
From the violent criminals that I know it's not that they are mentally ill or have some underlying mental issue, it's that they have made the choice to find a way out of the ghetto at any means neccessary. I still see no way that any sociologist can help with this problem. The underlying problem to crime is the social cast that we either impose on ourselves or allow to be imposed on us. Ranging from financial status to race and everything in between. So long as you have a group of people that believe that they are being treating unfairly you will have violence. Take this from some one who knows and has experienced the way people are treated. I worked my way up from the ghetto and poverity to being middle class. The diffrence in the way I was treated was night and day. When all this crap happened with the economy I found my self back in the ghetto once again night and day.
We could throw billion and billions even trillions into solving this dilemma. I doubt it would make that big of a diffrence. It's human nature. So long as you have sects (primarily rich vs poor) you will have volience. One group percives the other is being treated more favorablely then the other and lashes out. The rich try to make laws that keep the poor down and out and the poor look at the rich and say I want that. There is no "cure for crime except to make everyone equal. By that I mean everyone lives in the same type of house, drives the same car, gets paid the same no matter what their job is, etc...... If no one person is allowed to have more then another then there is no need for the majority of crime that we face today. (Of course this will never happen, thank god)
We do have people working on some of the problems that you mentioned. But tell me how is science going to stop gangs? Yes we have important issuse to worry about but this is also an important issue in its own right. What this hints at is a need for humans to find a balance with nature. I personally found it very soothing to go outside away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life and just stare up at the stars and be with my own thoughts. You cant do that in most of the cities in america.
I grew up in the inne city where in some places it was just as bright as daytime at night. (Those of you from phila know what I'm talking about) In my neighborhood I could see some stars if I was lucky I could see orion or the big dipper. I wasn't until I joined the navy and I was in the middle of the ocean with no land in either direction for hundreds of miles that I was able to see the full splender of the heavens. At 21yrs old I had my first look at the milky way. I had no idea what I was looking at. I wish my son could see these types of things. I have never seen that many stars. Crystal clear cold night in the north atlantic with a new moon. So dark you can barely see your own hand infront of your face but when you look up all you can say is WOW
What is the big deal about paying kids for good grades? Parents do it all the time $20 per A, $10 per B. So the school is doing now SO WHAT!! I wish they did this while I was in school I would have applied my self allot more. Most children do not/can not see properly into the future. They donâ(TM)t plan for the future the way we do. If we give them a reason to sit through these boring as hell classes other then you need this to get a job, then I'm all for it. I would say that 98% of adults who have any degree will tell you that they did not get their degree because they love learning, they got it so they could advance in their current position or get a better position i.e. MORE MONEY!!!!!! The only difference is with the kids is thatâ(TM)s its more short term then long term
One word for this artical. DUH!!! (I wonder how much tax dollars went to tell us this vital bit of info that my 6yr old son could have told you.) Since we need air to live it only goes to say that the cleaner the air the healthier we are and the healthier we are the longer we live.
Why are we only looking for earth sized planets? Is is some rule that a planet can not be the size of lets say jupiter and still be solid, contain an atmosphere,harbor life. It's far easier to spot these planets because of the wobble effect. The way it looks to me is that we are only focused on finding planets that are the same size as us and have a similer sun as us. What if an earth like planet is revolving around a red supergiant (for example) and is 3x farther away from it's sun then we are but it's the right distence to form life. When dealing with Space and alien life we have to take in effect things like there could be life on a gas planet too.
Now is not the time to worry You need to worry when Google teams up with or takes over microsoft Those 2 combined will take over the planet and there will be nothing that we can do to stop them.
This raises the possibility that a candidate could narrowly win a number of big states and get the most electoral votes and yet lose the popular vote.
This is what I was talking about. These are the time in american history that the person who won the popular vote did not win the election. This is why I say The electoral college should be done away with. You can fight that if these people want to keep their jobs then they will vote for who we say but as you see thats not always true. If it's not done away with it should be compleatly overhauled and done the way Nebraska and Maine do and split the vote proportionally between the members.
Four Times in History
Four times in election history a candidate has won the popular vote but lost the election.
In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular and the electoral vote--that is he received more votes than any of the other candidates. But, no one in the four-man race won a majority, or more than 50%, in the Electoral College, so the House of Representatives decided the outcome. The House picked John Quincy Adams, who had come in second in the popular and electoral votes. In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden won 51% of the popular vote, while Rutherford B. Hayes captured 48%. However, Hayes won 185 electoral votes, while Tilden got 184. A special electoral commission picked Hayes to be president.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison became president by winning 233 electoral votes, even though he received only 47.8% of the popular vote. His opponent, Grover Cleveland, garnered 48.6% of the popular vote, yet received only 168 electoral votes.
In 2000, Al Gore won 48.38% of the popular vote and 266 electoral votes. George W. Bush won only 47.87% of the popular vote but received 271 electoral votes, thus won the election.
538 Electors
There are a total of 538 electors. In December, the electors meet in each state's capital to formally elect the president. While electors are supposed to vote in accordance with their state's voters, they do not always do so.
In 1988 for example, a West Virginia elector did not vote for Michael Dukakis, who had carried that state. Instead the elector voted for Dukakis's running mate, Texas senator Lloyd Bentsen.
Lets make this simple. Just get rid of the electoral vote. That way whoever wins the popular vote wins the election. The way it is now even if Obama wins the popular vote by a large margin he can still lose the election. To me it makes no sense. It has happened b4 and I'm not talking with bush.
How can you not have a shoolow view of a paedophile?? It's one thing to say your attracted to children but a complete other to act on it. even if it is just downloading porn. By someone downloading kiddie-porn that is keeping these assholes in the buisness of exploting kids. While i find most cases of child molestation sick and think that those guilty of it should be but to death I also think that we need to rewrite some of the laws defining sexaul crime. When I think of kidde porn I think of kids 3yrs old or younger to the age of about 15. those guys should die a slow painfull death. older then 15 16 you need to look at the circumstances surrounding it. did she lie about her age if sex was involved was it consentual. I personally dated a 16yr old girl not knowing how old she was till I ment her father. Thank god we did not sleep together!!! She told me she was 21 and was in a club that you had to be 21 to get in. I think if you asked those 25-33% of men if they were attracted to children under lets say 15 then that number would drop. Then also ask those that still say yes if they would act on those feelings the number would drop even more.
Re:The bigger the risk the better the payout
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
You forgot a sense to want to destroy ourselves. I agree with with you on the traits. But this is with only a small persentage of humans. If we would devote more time and energy to teaching,training, research, and safty in these areas the we (the public) would feel better and safer about experiments like the LHC and more confident that incedents like Chernobyl would not happen.We as a species are on the cusp of unlocking many mysteries not only of the universe but of our own potentional.
Re:you can't stop the doomsayers
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
I compleatly agree. If we listened to the doomsayers we would still be living like it was 008 instead of 2008. We would not have cars because it was once thought that the human body could not stand to go faster then the speed of a horse. We would not have nuclear power because doomsayers thought it may cause an uncontrolable chain reaction that would incinerate the planet. Who knows what may come of this. This may unlock the mystries of space & time, actually create another mini or real sized universe, could create a black hole, or it could do nothing and just be a giant waste of money. The point is we do not know. I want to find out. This could be a turning point for the human race. this may unlock unlimited power. or we could just destroy ourselves. At least we would not feel it.
The bigger the risk the better the payout
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You know if these "naysayers" and doomsday fanatics had there way then we would not have half of the tech that we and them rely on, on a daily basis. With the Atom bomb everyone thought we would kill ourselves but out of the deadlist WMD every made came a cheap reliable source of fuel. I say push these test to the limit who knows what the possibilites are. Who knows because of the experiments done today we could have a "startrek" future. The bigger the risk the better the payout. So if we destroy our planet so what we're doing it know in other ways. why should this be any diffrent.
Slashdot Mirror
Whats next will I have to carry insulin because I may run into a diebetic that went into shock, or will I have to build wheelchair accibile ramps at my house. Maybe I'll have to write ym secnitnes sdrawkcab for the people who are dyslesic. The point I'm making is that you can not expect people to change their lives because you have a disability. Personally I think he is full of *&^% but who knows this may be a real disability. If so there are things he can do to minimize or negate all signals into his house. A simple layer or two of alumimim foil will do as a start.
Yes that would cut down on crime, but like you said there is a whole slue of issues in this area. I do believe there is a clear cut way to go from the "ghetto to beverly hills". Its long takes hard work and is not always guarrenteed. It's called education. One of the problems is that the youth today in general have an instant gratifacion complex. I want it and i want it now. Much of the inequallity is brought one by themselves (Not all but most)
"If it was easier for you to get out of the ghetto would you agree that the need for crime to get out of the ghetto decrease?" I not quite sure what your asking here. Just because someone was busted for theft and had drugs on them does not mean that they were stealing for drugs. I was caught a teen shoplifting, I stole because I wanted something and did not have the money for it at the time. I also had a small bit of weed in my pocket. I can tell you that I did not steal to support any habit, I stole out of stupidity. Unfortuntley the root cause of this issue will never be fixed. Not saying that it can't be fixed but it won't be fixed. Lets take the war on drugs for example, Since the begining we have spent well over 100 trillion (adjusted for inflation) on a losing war. No matter what safe guards we put in place the crimanials can get around it. Take a look at places over seas that have legalized most all drugs. They do not suffer from the same addictions that we as country do. Their rate is far lower. I do not believe that drugs are the root cause of our issues with crime yet I agree that you can trace the majority of crimes back to drugs. The root cause is inequality, the i want what you have syndrome, I'm not saying it's right or even fairbut that is the underlying issue here. People see shows like Cribs, and lifestyles of the rich and famous, etc... and they say that I want that is this is how I can get it now. They feel as though they are treated unfairly because they deserve that lifestlye and dont have it.
You are right that most crime is poor on poor. Drugs are not an escape from poverty they are an escape from reality. Most theft is not to get drugs it is to do simple things like eat. How ever I will say that most crimes can be traced back to drugs. From the violent criminals that I know it's not that they are mentally ill or have some underlying mental issue, it's that they have made the choice to find a way out of the ghetto at any means neccessary. I still see no way that any sociologist can help with this problem. The underlying problem to crime is the social cast that we either impose on ourselves or allow to be imposed on us. Ranging from financial status to race and everything in between. So long as you have a group of people that believe that they are being treating unfairly you will have violence. Take this from some one who knows and has experienced the way people are treated. I worked my way up from the ghetto and poverity to being middle class. The diffrence in the way I was treated was night and day. When all this crap happened with the economy I found my self back in the ghetto once again night and day.
We could throw billion and billions even trillions into solving this dilemma. I doubt it would make that big of a diffrence. It's human nature. So long as you have sects (primarily rich vs poor) you will have volience. One group percives the other is being treated more favorablely then the other and lashes out. The rich try to make laws that keep the poor down and out and the poor look at the rich and say I want that. There is no "cure for crime except to make everyone equal. By that I mean everyone lives in the same type of house, drives the same car, gets paid the same no matter what their job is, etc...... If no one person is allowed to have more then another then there is no need for the majority of crime that we face today. (Of course this will never happen, thank god)
We do have people working on some of the problems that you mentioned. But tell me how is science going to stop gangs? Yes we have important issuse to worry about but this is also an important issue in its own right. What this hints at is a need for humans to find a balance with nature. I personally found it very soothing to go outside away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life and just stare up at the stars and be with my own thoughts. You cant do that in most of the cities in america.
I grew up in the inne city where in some places it was just as bright as daytime at night. (Those of you from phila know what I'm talking about) In my neighborhood I could see some stars if I was lucky I could see orion or the big dipper. I wasn't until I joined the navy and I was in the middle of the ocean with no land in either direction for hundreds of miles that I was able to see the full splender of the heavens. At 21yrs old I had my first look at the milky way. I had no idea what I was looking at. I wish my son could see these types of things. I have never seen that many stars. Crystal clear cold night in the north atlantic with a new moon. So dark you can barely see your own hand infront of your face but when you look up all you can say is WOW
What is the big deal about paying kids for good grades? Parents do it all the time $20 per A, $10 per B. So the school is doing now SO WHAT!! I wish they did this while I was in school I would have applied my self allot more. Most children do not/can not see properly into the future. They donâ(TM)t plan for the future the way we do. If we give them a reason to sit through these boring as hell classes other then you need this to get a job, then I'm all for it. I would say that 98% of adults who have any degree will tell you that they did not get their degree because they love learning, they got it so they could advance in their current position or get a better position i.e. MORE MONEY!!!!!! The only difference is with the kids is thatâ(TM)s its more short term then long term
One word for this artical. DUH!!! (I wonder how much tax dollars went to tell us this vital bit of info that my 6yr old son could have told you.) Since we need air to live it only goes to say that the cleaner the air the healthier we are and the healthier we are the longer we live.
Why are we only looking for earth sized planets? Is is some rule that a planet can not be the size of lets say jupiter and still be solid, contain an atmosphere,harbor life. It's far easier to spot these planets because of the wobble effect. The way it looks to me is that we are only focused on finding planets that are the same size as us and have a similer sun as us. What if an earth like planet is revolving around a red supergiant (for example) and is 3x farther away from it's sun then we are but it's the right distence to form life. When dealing with Space and alien life we have to take in effect things like there could be life on a gas planet too.
Now is not the time to worry You need to worry when Google teams up with or takes over microsoft Those 2 combined will take over the planet and there will be nothing that we can do to stop them.
This raises the possibility that a candidate could narrowly win a number of big states and get the most electoral votes and yet lose the popular vote. This is what I was talking about. These are the time in american history that the person who won the popular vote did not win the election. This is why I say The electoral college should be done away with. You can fight that if these people want to keep their jobs then they will vote for who we say but as you see thats not always true. If it's not done away with it should be compleatly overhauled and done the way Nebraska and Maine do and split the vote proportionally between the members. Four Times in History Four times in election history a candidate has won the popular vote but lost the election. In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular and the electoral vote--that is he received more votes than any of the other candidates. But, no one in the four-man race won a majority, or more than 50%, in the Electoral College, so the House of Representatives decided the outcome. The House picked John Quincy Adams, who had come in second in the popular and electoral votes. In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden won 51% of the popular vote, while Rutherford B. Hayes captured 48%. However, Hayes won 185 electoral votes, while Tilden got 184. A special electoral commission picked Hayes to be president. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison became president by winning 233 electoral votes, even though he received only 47.8% of the popular vote. His opponent, Grover Cleveland, garnered 48.6% of the popular vote, yet received only 168 electoral votes. In 2000, Al Gore won 48.38% of the popular vote and 266 electoral votes. George W. Bush won only 47.87% of the popular vote but received 271 electoral votes, thus won the election. 538 Electors There are a total of 538 electors. In December, the electors meet in each state's capital to formally elect the president. While electors are supposed to vote in accordance with their state's voters, they do not always do so. In 1988 for example, a West Virginia elector did not vote for Michael Dukakis, who had carried that state. Instead the elector voted for Dukakis's running mate, Texas senator Lloyd Bentsen.
Lets make this simple. Just get rid of the electoral vote. That way whoever wins the popular vote wins the election. The way it is now even if Obama wins the popular vote by a large margin he can still lose the election. To me it makes no sense. It has happened b4 and I'm not talking with bush.
How can you not have a shoolow view of a paedophile?? It's one thing to say your attracted to children but a complete other to act on it. even if it is just downloading porn. By someone downloading kiddie-porn that is keeping these assholes in the buisness of exploting kids. While i find most cases of child molestation sick and think that those guilty of it should be but to death I also think that we need to rewrite some of the laws defining sexaul crime. When I think of kidde porn I think of kids 3yrs old or younger to the age of about 15. those guys should die a slow painfull death. older then 15 16 you need to look at the circumstances surrounding it. did she lie about her age if sex was involved was it consentual. I personally dated a 16yr old girl not knowing how old she was till I ment her father. Thank god we did not sleep together!!! She told me she was 21 and was in a club that you had to be 21 to get in. I think if you asked those 25-33% of men if they were attracted to children under lets say 15 then that number would drop. Then also ask those that still say yes if they would act on those feelings the number would drop even more.
You forgot a sense to want to destroy ourselves. I agree with with you on the traits. But this is with only a small persentage of humans. If we would devote more time and energy to teaching,training, research, and safty in these areas the we (the public) would feel better and safer about experiments like the LHC and more confident that incedents like Chernobyl would not happen.We as a species are on the cusp of unlocking many mysteries not only of the universe but of our own potentional.
I compleatly agree. If we listened to the doomsayers we would still be living like it was 008 instead of 2008. We would not have cars because it was once thought that the human body could not stand to go faster then the speed of a horse. We would not have nuclear power because doomsayers thought it may cause an uncontrolable chain reaction that would incinerate the planet. Who knows what may come of this. This may unlock the mystries of space & time, actually create another mini or real sized universe, could create a black hole, or it could do nothing and just be a giant waste of money. The point is we do not know. I want to find out. This could be a turning point for the human race. this may unlock unlimited power. or we could just destroy ourselves. At least we would not feel it.
You know if these "naysayers" and doomsday fanatics had there way then we would not have half of the tech that we and them rely on, on a daily basis. With the Atom bomb everyone thought we would kill ourselves but out of the deadlist WMD every made came a cheap reliable source of fuel. I say push these test to the limit who knows what the possibilites are. Who knows because of the experiments done today we could have a "startrek" future. The bigger the risk the better the payout. So if we destroy our planet so what we're doing it know in other ways. why should this be any diffrent.