"Russia has far more to do with arming jihadists in Syria. Seriously, while the U.S. has been no saint in the matter, Russia has been far worse. Supplying chemical weapons is just one example."
I think Russia is supporting Bashar and the jihadists are fighting Bashar, so I can't see how Russia could be supporting jihadists. And if by chemical weapons you mean the supposed sarin incident, again why would Bashar or Russians do something so counter productive, and useless as trying to kill a couple dozen people with gaz.
Yes, but does vengeance, or the death penalty, promote more crime and hence more victims.
Interesting first link too :
"Mullane said she was able to determine that 988 convicted murderers were released from prisons in California over a 20 year period... none of the 988 were rearrested for murder, and none went back to prison over the 20 year period she examined."
"Well it does cut down on the number of repeat offenders"
Well yes, but the vast majority of murderers never re-offend, and for the few others incarceration has the same effect.
How different policies affect the overall level of violence is what I'm wondering about, because it seems that promoting revenge would of course promote revenge for example.
But how they're going to know sensor cleaners are doing their job right, sensor diagnostics haven't failed, or what to do if dust, rain, or slush levels exceed safe driving conditions.
Let's start a new party and get rid of the libs all together.
Yeah, but maybe trying to divide the population into mutually exclusive categories like left and right, conservatives and liberals, or democrats and republicans isn't a very good start.
"Ideally, robots would be our first responders and HAZMAT workers, but we're not yet at that point. So -for now- we have to put people in harm's way to save many orders of magnitude more people from far greater harm."
For now I think the best is to manage exposure time. Rather than increasing the maximum exposure time per person, the usual thing to do, if need be, is to increase the number of persons exposed.
"Putting this in some perspective, it's something less than 20 CT scans. While that seems high, it's well within the range of what some (sick) people get. Not a great idea, but a 'tolerable' level of radiation."
In other words, it's tolerable for a sick person who might die if they don't get the scans, but it's not ok or 'tolerable' for a healthy person.
Judges and lawyers have decided there is a difference.
I'm guessing they argued that asking for disclosure after a speech is not the same as abridging that speech (in the legal sense of curtailing). And as others have mentioned, competing rights need to be balanced.
If you try to speak, and the government stops you and threatens to arrest you if you speak without identifying yourself, then that is an abridgment of your right to free speech.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
I don't see how political add disclosure curtails or reduces a corporations' ability to speak.
"No, because coal ash is a pain in the butt to deal with. So that costs money just to move it out of the plant."
You mean yes, pollution is a cost. When the cost of dealing with coal ash is factored in, the cost goes up.
"Coal ash is one of the largest types of industrial waste generated in the United States... nearly 130 million tons of coal ash was generated in 2014... Coal ash contains contaminants like mercury, cadmium and arsenic. Without proper management, these contaminants can pollute waterways, ground water, drinking water, and the air"
Slashdot Mirror
"Russia has far more to do with arming jihadists in Syria. Seriously, while the U.S. has been no saint in the matter, Russia has been far worse. Supplying chemical weapons is just one example."
I think Russia is supporting Bashar and the jihadists are fighting Bashar, so I can't see how Russia could be supporting jihadists. And if by chemical weapons you mean the supposed sarin incident, again why would Bashar or Russians do something so counter productive, and useless as trying to kill a couple dozen people with gaz.
Totally agree with the rest of your comment.
Yes, but does vengeance, or the death penalty, promote more crime and hence more victims.
Interesting first link too :
"Mullane said she was able to determine that 988 convicted murderers were released from prisons in California over a 20 year period ... none of the 988 were rearrested for murder, and none went back to prison over the 20 year period she examined."
Agreed. Any links?
"it may deter"
and it may, overall, may promote crime
I agree. Any links?
Yes, but does vengance or the death penalty promote more crime and hence more victims.
"it may deter"
I beg to differ: overall, it may promote crime
"Well it does cut down on the number of repeat offenders"
Well yes, but the vast majority of murderers never re-offend, and for the few others incarceration has the same effect.
How different policies affect the overall level of violence is what I'm wondering about, because it seems that promoting revenge would of course promote revenge for example.
Why? Do you expect that will result in a less violent society? Any references?
Those things hardly fixed the larger problem, and the larger death count, when you look at the region globally.
And it's often the case that making only some safer, makes the rest less so.
"One is warfare the other a symptom of poor mental health."
And that kind of poor mental health is a symptom of poor social development i.e. poor cultural support.
Not sure a driving test is such a low standard for a 'perceptually challenged' self driving car.
Pretty sure they couldn't pass one.
But how they're going to know sensor cleaners are doing their job right, sensor diagnostics haven't failed, or what to do if dust, rain, or slush levels exceed safe driving conditions.
But why throw away a perfectly good car ? Or was his Telsa broken and beyond repair ?
That doesn't sound like it's good, for anybody.
Let's start a new party and get rid of the libs all together.
Yeah, but maybe trying to divide the population into mutually exclusive categories like left and right, conservatives and liberals, or democrats and republicans isn't a very good start.
"Whose design?"
Whomever is the current scapegoat?
"Ideally, robots would be our first responders and HAZMAT workers, but we're not yet at that point. So -for now- we have to put people in harm's way to save many orders of magnitude more people from far greater harm."
For now I think the best is to manage exposure time. Rather than increasing the maximum exposure time per person, the usual thing to do, if need be, is to increase the number of persons exposed.
"Putting this in some perspective, it's something less than 20 CT scans. While that seems high, it's well within the range of what some (sick) people get. Not a great idea, but a 'tolerable' level of radiation."
In other words, it's tolerable for a sick person who might die if they don't get the scans, but it's not ok or 'tolerable' for a healthy person.
And the rights of corporated individuals are not identical to the rights of individuals.
Judges and lawyers have decided there is a difference.
I'm guessing they argued that asking for disclosure after a speech is not the same as abridging that speech (in the legal sense of curtailing). And as others have mentioned, competing rights need to be balanced.
I'd argue disclosure is a condition imposed on freedom of speech not an abridgement of speech.
It's not "no law". It's "no law [...] abridging".
If you try to speak, and the government stops you and threatens to arrest you if you speak without identifying yourself, then that is an abridgment of your right to free speech.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
I don't see how political add disclosure curtails or reduces a corporations' ability to speak.
Good point.
"No, because coal ash is a pain in the butt to deal with. So that costs money just to move it out of the plant."
You mean yes, pollution is a cost. When the cost of dealing with coal ash is factored in, the cost goes up.
"Coal ash is one of the largest types of industrial waste generated in the United States ... nearly 130 million tons of coal ash was generated in 2014 ... Coal ash contains contaminants like mercury, cadmium and arsenic. Without proper management, these contaminants can pollute waterways, ground water, drinking water, and the air"
https://www.epa.gov/coalash/co...