That's part of the reason they are fun; they're an escape from reality. Most people seek games and entertainment as a way to get away from reality; when you seek to simple replace it, many people will shy away from that.
The rest of the world has a very vested interest in the contiuance of the United States of America. If faith in elections falls apart, it could have serious effects on the country, and if the US were in turmoil, it would significantly negatively impact the rest of the world.
How long before Google filters U.S. results for politically-appropriate content?
Their "safesearch" option is on by default already. I highly doubt they would ever filter U.S. results unless a similar situation to one in China arose, which is very unlikely to occur. Even if it did, Google is not the only search engine out there.
Which makes it a lot different than withdrawal from any kind of substance abuse. If you quit smoking, drinking, smoking crack, whatever, you can't take a vacation and forget about it.
Agreed, I've found that not having Internet access only creates problems when you *think* that's the only thing to possibly do, and don't bother trying to do something else (and instead sit at home wondering what people used computers for before the Internet existed).
When I went to Mexico for a week, I had next to no connection to the world at large (no TV, no Internet, never even had the chance to pick up a newspaper). Yet, I was so busy with other things, and my mind was focused on those tasks, that it didn't bother me at all.
When I moved to my new apartment, Time Warner told me it would take 3 weeks to hook up my Internet access; it bothered me for the first couple of days quite a bit, because I had absolutely nothing else to do (or so I convinced myself). Then I realized I could go to school and use the library, and everything was OK. =]
Well, considering they want to raise the minimum wage to $12.50; I guess that 10 times that comes to $400,000; of course, if you raise the minimum wage that much, then everything is going to cost more, and effectively eliminate most of what raising the minimum wage did.
I don't recall the Green Party ever embracing this, but assuming that they do, what is any one's incentive to acquire income in excess of that amount? If you assume they will do so in order to contribute to the public good; then why force them to hand that money over to the government, when instead they could be let to give it as they please?
It's also a rediculously low amount; considering that there a lot of people in the 100-150 range.
Of course, in smaller cities and rural areas, that cost goes way down. So it might just be that wherever you were in England the cost of living was considerably lower than where you lived in the US, and therefore the workers were able to sustain themselves just fine on lower wages.
The study wasn't based on field of work, but field of study. Psychology is often the degree of choice for people "with nothing better to do," so it's not surprising that the average salary is so low. I imagine a relatively small percentage of people with psychology degrees actually become clinical psychologists.
California has a whistleblower statute that would allow them to collect up to 30% of any reimbursement paid to the state.
It makes sense, the state is awarding people for bringing things to their attention which save them money. A lot of employers engage in the same practice.
by acknowledging it as a social problem and legislating against it
Heh, I can't stop laughing. I'll spare you the embarassment of pointing out how many social problems we've tried to legislate against ineffectively (including SPAM, as in the CANSPAM Act.) The problem is that is such a widespread problem (which can very easily be moved outside the jurisdiction of the United States) that you're not going to resolve it this way. Enforcement is almost impossible. It would cost an incredible amount of money to even try to enforce such an act, and result in minimal gains, which will not be any deterrant at all (sound familiar, say, War on Drugs?)
Legislation without adequate enforcement does no good, and in many cases, enforcement is simply impossible. It'd be like making smoking tobacco in the home illegal. Yes, it's a social problem, because we all end up paying for smokers' healthcare; however, it's not going to stop them from smoking in their homes.
Is this sarcastic? We've all seen the "great successed" of the War on Drugs.
It's like abortion. Making abortion illegal will not stop it from happening. It will just make it more hidden from mainstream society (and entirely unregulated and thus very dangerous to those involved). If you want to stop abortion, you have to attack the causes of abortion. There are any number of things which can be shown to lead to the desire for an abortion. To name a few: poverty, lack of knowledge of birth control, unavailability of birth control, lack of understanding of the full consequences of child bearing, etc.
That said, I can't possibly see anyway that the statement you made is not satirical. Here's hoping I'm right.
It would be very difficult to know how to react to this if they were to attack us first, since they're not necessarily outright agressors, but instead are attacking us in response to questionable actions our government has taken recently. While in most cases of an attack on our soil, the people of the United States will fight back with full force and even pacifist will support the war, with Iran it would be a very different situation than World War II.
Miranda specifically *upholds* the individual's right to privacy.
Miranda has been held only to apply to accused individuals in custody. If you are questioned without being accused of a crime and in custody of the police, and you incriminate yourself without being read your Miranda rights, everything you said is still admissible in court.
Learn how Congress works before you try to criticize its processes.
Votes can be taken any number of different ways in the House:
1. Voice vote 2. Divison 3. Recorded
A voice vote is almost always used in the first place, if it's overwhelming, there's no point in wasting time going any further.
Any member can then demand a division, where by those in favor rise, those opposed rise, and are counted, but their votes are not recorded (but the press and others will always note who voted which way).
Then, any member can request a recorded vote, which must be supported by at least 1/5th of a quorum (the rules are slightly modified for any votes by the Committee of the Whole), and then votes are taken by electronic device and officially recorded as to who voted which way.
You can be assured that for almost everything other than entirely non-controversial legislature. Also, most bills regarding income tax increases, and other fiscal measures automatically require a recorded vote.
it's the best means of insuring that a person who has utterly broken from civilization and proven so through his actions can never again harm an innocent person.
How many people on life without parole in maximum security prisons have escaped and killed again?
Scott Turow's recent book on capital punishment looks at it in a slightly different light than most people consider it. (He's very well qualified to speak on the issue, having successfully prosecuted many death penalty cases in Illinois, as well as other experience.) His main point is that in order to accept the death penalty as a viable option, we have to also accept that innocent people will be put to death, and that their death is worth it, to ensure that we are able to put to death people that are truly "evil". He goes into a lot more detail than that, but I think it is definitely worth a read.
In other words, I'm sure it's all the rage on college campuses.
Illinois' death penalty moratorium wasn't just the whim of the Governer; there was a panel of many people on both sides of the issue that spend a long time deciding what to do, and they ultimately decided that the state could not go on executing people if there was any chance they might be innocent.
I don't think "fair" is ever mentioned, but many faculties are given that could help to make the trial "fair":
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." U.S. Const. amend. VI.
I always thought that the whole point of a guilty plea was to lower the severity of the maximum sentence.
Not always, a lot of guilty pleas are entered because people know they have no chance and are ready to give up and get on with their lives.
Ever paid a traffic ticket without showing up in court? You paid the exact same by pleading guilty that you would have by going to court and the judge finding you guilty.
Getting things done faster would allow more to be done; a lot of cases are ignored because there's not enough time to do them. Attorneys would probably make more money if the legal system were more efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you watch the video? He has a CRT and LCD on the same computer moving a window; and there you can see the delay.
He did not win a majority of the popular vote. Al Gore won a plurality of the popular vote.
Al Gore had 48.879% of the vote
George W Bush had 48.358% of the vote
Ralph Nader had 2.763% of the vote
A majority is greater than 50%; no one had that.
Games as they are now are not realistic enough
That's part of the reason they are fun; they're an escape from reality. Most people seek games and entertainment as a way to get away from reality; when you seek to simple replace it, many people will shy away from that.
Looks more like a piece of farm equipment strapped to the top of an airplane.
The rest of the world has a very vested interest in the contiuance of the United States of America. If faith in elections falls apart, it could have serious effects on the country, and if the US were in turmoil, it would significantly negatively impact the rest of the world.
Or all the snowbirds that voted in New York (absentee) and Florida in the last election?
How long before Google filters U.S. results for politically-appropriate content?
Their "safesearch" option is on by default already. I highly doubt they would ever filter U.S. results unless a similar situation to one in China arose, which is very unlikely to occur. Even if it did, Google is not the only search engine out there.
Which makes it a lot different than withdrawal from any kind of substance abuse. If you quit smoking, drinking, smoking crack, whatever, you can't take a vacation and forget about it.
Agreed, I've found that not having Internet access only creates problems when you *think* that's the only thing to possibly do, and don't bother trying to do something else (and instead sit at home wondering what people used computers for before the Internet existed).
When I went to Mexico for a week, I had next to no connection to the world at large (no TV, no Internet, never even had the chance to pick up a newspaper). Yet, I was so busy with other things, and my mind was focused on those tasks, that it didn't bother me at all.
When I moved to my new apartment, Time Warner told me it would take 3 weeks to hook up my Internet access; it bothered me for the first couple of days quite a bit, because I had absolutely nothing else to do (or so I convinced myself). Then I realized I could go to school and use the library, and everything was OK. =]
Well, considering they want to raise the minimum wage to $12.50; I guess that 10 times that comes to $400,000; of course, if you raise the minimum wage that much, then everything is going to cost more, and effectively eliminate most of what raising the minimum wage did.
So any income over $105,000 is taxed at 100%?
I don't recall the Green Party ever embracing this, but assuming that they do, what is any one's incentive to acquire income in excess of that amount? If you assume they will do so in order to contribute to the public good; then why force them to hand that money over to the government, when instead they could be let to give it as they please?
It's also a rediculously low amount; considering that there a lot of people in the 100-150 range.
cost of living in major cities worldwide
Of course, in smaller cities and rural areas, that cost goes way down. So it might just be that wherever you were in England the cost of living was considerably lower than where you lived in the US, and therefore the workers were able to sustain themselves just fine on lower wages.
The study wasn't based on field of work, but field of study. Psychology is often the degree of choice for people "with nothing better to do," so it's not surprising that the average salary is so low. I imagine a relatively small percentage of people with psychology degrees actually become clinical psychologists.
California has a whistleblower statute that would allow them to collect up to 30% of any reimbursement paid to the state.
It makes sense, the state is awarding people for bringing things to their attention which save them money. A lot of employers engage in the same practice.
After reviewing the context of your comment, I think it's definitely certain that you were be sarcastic. I should be more careful =]
by acknowledging it as a social problem and legislating against it
Heh, I can't stop laughing. I'll spare you the embarassment of pointing out how many social problems we've tried to legislate against ineffectively (including SPAM, as in the CANSPAM Act.) The problem is that is such a widespread problem (which can very easily be moved outside the jurisdiction of the United States) that you're not going to resolve it this way. Enforcement is almost impossible. It would cost an incredible amount of money to even try to enforce such an act, and result in minimal gains, which will not be any deterrant at all (sound familiar, say, War on Drugs?)
Legislation without adequate enforcement does no good, and in many cases, enforcement is simply impossible. It'd be like making smoking tobacco in the home illegal. Yes, it's a social problem, because we all end up paying for smokers' healthcare; however, it's not going to stop them from smoking in their homes.
Is this sarcastic? We've all seen the "great successed" of the War on Drugs.
It's like abortion. Making abortion illegal will not stop it from happening. It will just make it more hidden from mainstream society (and entirely unregulated and thus very dangerous to those involved). If you want to stop abortion, you have to attack the causes of abortion. There are any number of things which can be shown to lead to the desire for an abortion. To name a few: poverty, lack of knowledge of birth control, unavailability of birth control, lack of understanding of the full consequences of child bearing, etc.
That said, I can't possibly see anyway that the statement you made is not satirical. Here's hoping I'm right.
to the Iran war.
It would be very difficult to know how to react to this if they were to attack us first, since they're not necessarily outright agressors, but instead are attacking us in response to questionable actions our government has taken recently. While in most cases of an attack on our soil, the people of the United States will fight back with full force and even pacifist will support the war, with Iran it would be a very different situation than World War II.
Miranda specifically *upholds* the individual's right to privacy.
Miranda has been held only to apply to accused individuals in custody. If you are questioned without being accused of a crime and in custody of the police, and you incriminate yourself without being read your Miranda rights, everything you said is still admissible in court.
Learn how Congress works before you try to criticize its processes.
Votes can be taken any number of different ways in the House:
1. Voice vote
2. Divison
3. Recorded
A voice vote is almost always used in the first place, if it's overwhelming, there's no point in wasting time going any further.
Any member can then demand a division, where by those in favor rise, those opposed rise, and are counted, but their votes are not recorded (but the press and others will always note who voted which way).
Then, any member can request a recorded vote, which must be supported by at least 1/5th of a quorum (the rules are slightly modified for any votes by the Committee of the Whole), and then votes are taken by electronic device and officially recorded as to who voted which way.
You can be assured that for almost everything other than entirely non-controversial legislature. Also, most bills regarding income tax increases, and other fiscal measures automatically require a recorded vote.
You pay court costs when you pay the ticket out of court as well, and it is almost always the same cost as it would be if you went to court.
How many people on life without parole in maximum security prisons have escaped and killed again?
Scott Turow's recent book on capital punishment looks at it in a slightly different light than most people consider it. (He's very well qualified to speak on the issue, having successfully prosecuted many death penalty cases in Illinois, as well as other experience.) His main point is that in order to accept the death penalty as a viable option, we have to also accept that innocent people will be put to death, and that their death is worth it, to ensure that we are able to put to death people that are truly "evil". He goes into a lot more detail than that, but I think it is definitely worth a read.
In other words, I'm sure it's all the rage on college campuses.
Illinois' death penalty moratorium wasn't just the whim of the Governer; there was a panel of many people on both sides of the issue that spend a long time deciding what to do, and they ultimately decided that the state could not go on executing people if there was any chance they might be innocent.
the right to a fair and speedy trial
I don't think "fair" is ever mentioned, but many faculties are given that could help to make the trial "fair":
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." U.S. Const. amend. VI.
I always thought that the whole point of a guilty plea was to lower the severity of the maximum sentence.
Not always, a lot of guilty pleas are entered because people know they have no chance and are ready to give up and get on with their lives.
Ever paid a traffic ticket without showing up in court? You paid the exact same by pleading guilty that you would have by going to court and the judge finding you guilty.
Getting things done faster would allow more to be done; a lot of cases are ignored because there's not enough time to do them. Attorneys would probably make more money if the legal system were more efficient.