My response to that would be to lock them up -- knowing where they live is simply not enough. If they are likely to commit their crimes again, keep them in jail. If necessary, keep them in jail until they die.
"Contrast with sexual offenses [1], where a low estimate of recidivism is at about 52% [wsj.com]. Such offenders do represent a real, long-term threat to those around them. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the idea of "paying one's debt to society", because while I believe that serving a prison sentence should wipe the slate clean, there's no way I'd move my family next to someone with "only" a 52% chance of repeating their crime."
I heartily agree with you -- which is where my second point came from. It is appalling how little time some of these people spend in prison. I am all for increasing the minimum sentence for child rape to life without parole. I couldn't support the death penalty for this crime, but I don't think you ought to ever see the light of day again if you are 52% likely to commit the same crime -- a silly little list on the Intertubes is no substitute for concrete and steel. I mean, pot dealers go to jail LONGER than child rapists! Why not stop sending pot dealers to jail, so we have more room for the child rapists?
Ahh... yes. This is highly disturbing. I am not sure where this would be categorized, but that is completely insane that a minor could be charged like that. Please note that I don't use the class thing as justification for the registry, I am just clarifying that if you get caught peeing in a bush, you aren't going to be visible on the registry's website. I think that the idea of it really stinks of a witch hunt and is flawed on more or less every possible level.
What is with the excessive demonization of sex offenders today? What makes this class of crime the worst by such a large margin that we need a whole separate form of punishment? Why not a murderer registry? Certainly murder is a more serious crime, right?
Furthermore, if the government can ascertain fully enough that these people are very dangerous and likely to commit their same crimes again, WTF are they doing free? Shouldn't they be in prison or a mental hospital if that is the case?
BTW to the other posters -- only Class 2 and 3 sex offenders show up on the registry -- these are usually the nasty, malicious ones. The bush-pissers and streakers end up as Class 1. Still extremely odious, but not quite as bad, and their names are not made pubic, errr... public.
"Food preservation techniques came about in about 1850 btw, but don't worry about it."
Umm... pardon me but WTF are you talking about? Sure, food preservation was in existence in 1850, as it was thousands of years before. Are you really going to suggest that food preservation hasn't improved drastically since 1850? I mean, how about that little thing called refrigeration?
"My uncles are limited in the amount of land that they can work on their farms by the size of the tractors and machinery they have."
As opposed to 100 years ago, where they would have been limited by the amount of crops that would not be infected/eaten by pests. Or by how much produce they could reasonably get to market due to lack of preservation/transportation infrastructure. These things are equally as important to the modern agricultural system as tractors and combines, they are just not as visible.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Now, obviously, everything that you mentioned is harmful in a concentrated dose, but I have not seen any evidence that any of these things are harmful in the minute doses in which they are present in our food by the time we get it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that we would be worse off without them as pesticides often prevent the growth of toxic mold and bacteria on your food. Show me hard evidence (and not from a new age herbal nutritionist) that non-organic food is more harmful than organic when proper quality standards are in place. If you can I will be convinced, but I am not holding my breath.
"And really, organic food has never been about health. It's more about sustainable practices and all that jazz."
It is actually far less sustainable than our current farming methods, and it makes sense that that would be the case considering the essential inefficiency of it. If all farming went organic, nearly all of our forests would need to be cut down (greenhouse effect, anyone?) and billions (yes, with a 'b') would starve to death. I would submit that today's population numbers in and of themselves are not sustainable, but that is a totally different story. For the population numbers we have today, organic farming is absolutely not sustainable.
"That said, when and if I buy organic foods, it's usually fruits, vegetables, or nuts; and I do so because they are of noticably better quality than standard supermarket faire. For me, it has nothing to do with health OR environmentalism... Organic produce simply tends to be better quality from a culinary standpoint."
Quality control. That's it. Because the organic farmers know that they will be held to a higher standard (and price), they are just more likely to throw away weird looking crops. They are also more likely to pick everything at the right time, due to lower yields. Higher yields on big commercial farms = a lot of produce not quite being ready yet/being overripe and making it to market.
"That may be so, but I've never seen it advertised as healthier based on nutrients. I've mostly seen it advertised as containing no artificial chemicals or enhancers, or growth hormones, which--as they say--may affect our metabolism or cause health issues."
Where is the evidence that this happens? We live in the age of science and reason, where statements like these NEED to be backed up by fact. None of the research I have seen backs this up, putting organic food in the same realm as crystal therapy and homeopathy. If some real health benefits can be shown, I will most certainly be swayed by the evidence and start shopping exclusively at Whole Foods, that is the way evidence works, but as of yet I have seen nothing even moderately convincing.
"You see, that is precisely the problem with the article and the study: that the focus is so narrow as to be misunderstood."
That is the way that science works -- you can't just go about testing every aspect of something all at once, the results would be statistical trainwreck. The narrower your study, the more accurate your results will be. The study is not about the health impact of pesticides, and it can't be. If the same team tried to study both simultaneously, the results would be a garbled mess and would be entirely meaningless. I think it goes without saying that expecting them to factor in the environmental impact is beyond absurd -- that would be expecting these scientists to cease being doctors and magically throw their hats in the environmental science ring. Not only is a completely different field of study, it has no relevance to the study at hand. Both of these issues have been addressed elsewhere, and have come up overwhelmingly against organic food.
That is because it was not the focus of the study, and has already been studied to death anyway. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that the pesticides used on our food cause us any harm -- there really is extensive quality control as to what is and is not allowed to be sold to you and it is determined scientifically. If there is any doubt, it will not be sold.
"The point behind organic food is that it's better for the environment, not healthier to eat."
No. No it's not. Organic Food ExposedContrary to popular belief, organic farming, due to it's inherent inefficiencies, is not even close to being sustainable. They need far more land than the Earth can provide, and far more organic material for fertilizer.
And you are absolutely delusion if you believe that organic food is not being billed as being healthier to eat -- they are most certainly doing this, despite the fact that study after study shows that the pesticide levels in non-organic food are nowhere near high enough to cause us harm. It is simply technophobia -- people are afraid of things that they don't understand and therefore want to turn the clock back 150 years on farming.
On a somewhat unrelated note, I want to dispel the myths about natural vs. unnatural. First of all, the definition of the terms are absolutely meaningless, everything that we could ever possibly refer to as unnatural STILL comes from nature. The space shuttle is 100% natural by this definition -- every single piece of that machine came from the Earth and was processed by human beings (who also, consequently, rose from a soup of organic molecules on Earth). If we are going to define "natural" as being unmolested by humans, where do we draw the line? If the plant is cultivated by humans can we still call it natural? How about if we pluck it from the ground, or off of the branch? What if we squeeze the juice out of the fruit to drink it? If we can still call all of these things natural, there is no basis to call any other food product unnatural. This is not even to mention the fact that most of the plants and animals that we eat have been extensively genetically engineered over the centuries through artificial selection. Even if there were a reasonable definition, why would we assume that natural is better anyway? There are plenty of bad things in nature, box jellyfish venom for instance. Are we to assume that box jellyfish venom is less harmful than potassium benzoate, on the grounds that the one was produced through natural selection and the other through human intervention? The whole thing is absurd on its face.
"Around the turn of the last century, we needed about 80% of the US population working on farms to feed us all. Today, it's more like 4%, and we're the world's biggest food exporter. What do you think made that possible?"
Machinery.
I really hope that was a joke of a question by the way or the fact that you're currently at +4 means ignorance abounds on this site regarding agriculture.
You see, twostix, there is this literary device known as a "rhetorical question". This literary device is used when the writer/speaker knows that the answer is obvious, and will be automatically arrived at by the audience just in the asking of the question. See also: Socratic method.
I find it even more amusing that your answer, while partially correct, is actually not even accurate. Certainly, machinery has been a huge factor, but the answer was "technology" in general, rather than specifically JUST machinery. We have better fertilizers and irrigation technologies. From our knowledge in genetics and biology, we have been able to figure out better crop rotations, breeding methods, and in some cases, how to directly manipulate the genes of plants to bring about a better yield. Technology has given us better ways to preserve the food, so that we don't need everything directly from the market within a few days of being harvested, allowing farmers to greatly increase yield. We have MUCH better transportation systems as well, so that farming needs to be less localized. There are many, many other factors involved in this equation, but I think my point is clear.
Ummm... WTF? All I am pointing out is that you were lambasting another posting for saying that reading a book is more productive than playing a video game, when he said nothing of the sort -- the use of the word 'or' makes it clear that the author considers reading a book to be equally unproductive as playing a video game. Although from your reading comprehension skills, I would say that you ought to read a book every now and again.
I think he writes books lacking technical authenticity because fact checking and research are hard, expensive prospects and the vast majority of Americans are far to dumb to know the difference. Why spend a million dollars on extra research so you can sell a few thousand more copies to the few nerds who give a shit and can tell the difference?
Asking people to imagine a Dan Brown where he got his fact straight is closer to asking people to imagine what an Agatha Christie novel would read like if set in a postapocalyptic future where giant mutant weasels fight off vampire dogs aided by elves from a parallel universe, in a metaphor for the fifth century Roman Empire and the collapse of the Catholic church.
Performed as a play written in iambic pentameter, and directed by Spike Lee.
Which is, strangely enough, exactly what happens in the @$$clown's next novel!
You can always boycott their policies by *not* playing their games and doing something productive instead... or, if you want to consume free art, read a Project Gutenberg book. There's plenty of great ones there.
You do realize what you said is completely stupid, right? Entertainment is entertainment... how is reading a book ANY more productive than watching TV or playing a video game? Hell, at least with video games you're practicing hand-eye coordination.
Umm... no, it's not. Because of Walmart's bizarre moralizing policies, many creative endeavors end up being curtailed and censored to see the shelves at Walmart. I mean, they censor all the music in their stores! And they don't even always warn you that the album has bleeps! Meanwhile, 10 feet away you can buy the unrated version of Natural Born Killers. I don't get it...
Yes, I am sure "self righteous fools" such as myself frequently run out of things to say to you upon realizing that you are apparently 100% impervious to logic and rational thought.
'These galaxies would have been normal in the early universe, but we just don't see such active galaxies today. Understanding the Green Peas may tell us something about how stars were formed in the early universe and how galaxies evolve.'
"My point (which you obviously, and maybe even intentionally, missed by a mile) was the hypocrisy of claiming that something is bad for you, then allowing it to happen. If you don't intend to do jack shit about it (because you believe you must not), then STFU about it."
WTF are you talking about? Total logic fail. Why is it hypocritical to say that something is bad and then not make it against the law? Is it hypocritical for the government to tell us that we need to eat better without outlawing McDonalds and mandating a good diet? Of course not, the folks researching our health NEED to tell us what they are figuring out and what is good and bad for us, but it is not hypocritical for them to let us decide for ourselves whether or not to listen. By your line of reasoning, all fast food joints would be put out of business, you would be chased by a guy with a cattle prod to make sure you run the mandatory 5 miles a day, and government operatives would bust into your bedroom every time you (well, probably not you, but other people) decided to have sex just to make sure that they are wearing a condom. If this were not the case, government funded medical research (which is a very large portion of medical research, btw), would not be allowed to inform you of the risks in the world around you. Public schools would not be able to warn kids about the risks of fatty foods, cigarettes, and unprotected sex. What you are advocating is either fascism or idiocy.
Oh pleez. What's next: people can run faster with their legs missing, than with heavy shoes?
Again, WTF are you talking about? Do you think about these viewpoints before you share them? I am saying that making things against the law does not make people not do them. This is very well backed up by evidence. The most well known example of this is alcohol prohibition -- nobody stopped drinking, alcohol consumption was just pushed underground. This created a huge black market economy and allowed villains like Al Capone to effectively take over the major cities. Because of the fact that alcohol had to be produced by villains as well, there was not quality control. Drinkers had no idea how much alcohol they were getting and the homemade hooch frequently contained some seriously noxious chemicals which rendered many users blind.
Compare this to what we are doing with smoking, and what Portugal has done with drug use. In both cases, we are using education and treatment to reduce the use of these substances, both of which are far more effective.
Oh God no! X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter is a deep flight sim, Battlefront is a garbage, barely playable console game for kids. That would be like asking for a gourmet hamburger and getting something from McDonalds. Actually, no it would be more like someone just taking a dump on a hamburger bun and calling it a burger. So exactly like McDonalds.
Slashdot Mirror
My response to that would be to lock them up -- knowing where they live is simply not enough. If they are likely to commit their crimes again, keep them in jail. If necessary, keep them in jail until they die.
I heartily agree with you -- which is where my second point came from. It is appalling how little time some of these people spend in prison. I am all for increasing the minimum sentence for child rape to life without parole. I couldn't support the death penalty for this crime, but I don't think you ought to ever see the light of day again if you are 52% likely to commit the same crime -- a silly little list on the Intertubes is no substitute for concrete and steel. I mean, pot dealers go to jail LONGER than child rapists! Why not stop sending pot dealers to jail, so we have more room for the child rapists?
Ahh... yes. This is highly disturbing. I am not sure where this would be categorized, but that is completely insane that a minor could be charged like that. Please note that I don't use the class thing as justification for the registry, I am just clarifying that if you get caught peeing in a bush, you aren't going to be visible on the registry's website. I think that the idea of it really stinks of a witch hunt and is flawed on more or less every possible level.
What is with the excessive demonization of sex offenders today? What makes this class of crime the worst by such a large margin that we need a whole separate form of punishment? Why not a murderer registry? Certainly murder is a more serious crime, right?
Furthermore, if the government can ascertain fully enough that these people are very dangerous and likely to commit their same crimes again, WTF are they doing free? Shouldn't they be in prison or a mental hospital if that is the case?
BTW to the other posters -- only Class 2 and 3 sex offenders show up on the registry -- these are usually the nasty, malicious ones. The bush-pissers and streakers end up as Class 1. Still extremely odious, but not quite as bad, and their names are not made pubic, errr... public.
"Food preservation techniques came about in about 1850 btw, but don't worry about it."
Umm... pardon me but WTF are you talking about? Sure, food preservation was in existence in 1850, as it was thousands of years before. Are you really going to suggest that food preservation hasn't improved drastically since 1850? I mean, how about that little thing called refrigeration?
"My uncles are limited in the amount of land that they can work on their farms by the size of the tractors and machinery they have."
As opposed to 100 years ago, where they would have been limited by the amount of crops that would not be infected/eaten by pests. Or by how much produce they could reasonably get to market due to lack of preservation/transportation infrastructure. These things are equally as important to the modern agricultural system as tractors and combines, they are just not as visible.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Now, obviously, everything that you mentioned is harmful in a concentrated dose, but I have not seen any evidence that any of these things are harmful in the minute doses in which they are present in our food by the time we get it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that we would be worse off without them as pesticides often prevent the growth of toxic mold and bacteria on your food. Show me hard evidence (and not from a new age herbal nutritionist) that non-organic food is more harmful than organic when proper quality standards are in place. If you can I will be convinced, but I am not holding my breath.
"And really, organic food has never been about health. It's more about sustainable practices and all that jazz."
It is actually far less sustainable than our current farming methods, and it makes sense that that would be the case considering the essential inefficiency of it. If all farming went organic, nearly all of our forests would need to be cut down (greenhouse effect, anyone?) and billions (yes, with a 'b') would starve to death. I would submit that today's population numbers in and of themselves are not sustainable, but that is a totally different story. For the population numbers we have today, organic farming is absolutely not sustainable.
"That said, when and if I buy organic foods, it's usually fruits, vegetables, or nuts; and I do so because they are of noticably better quality than standard supermarket faire. For me, it has nothing to do with health OR environmentalism... Organic produce simply tends to be better quality from a culinary standpoint."
Quality control. That's it. Because the organic farmers know that they will be held to a higher standard (and price), they are just more likely to throw away weird looking crops. They are also more likely to pick everything at the right time, due to lower yields. Higher yields on big commercial farms = a lot of produce not quite being ready yet/being overripe and making it to market.
"That may be so, but I've never seen it advertised as healthier based on nutrients. I've mostly seen it advertised as containing no artificial chemicals or enhancers, or growth hormones, which--as they say--may affect our metabolism or cause health issues."
Where is the evidence that this happens? We live in the age of science and reason, where statements like these NEED to be backed up by fact. None of the research I have seen backs this up, putting organic food in the same realm as crystal therapy and homeopathy. If some real health benefits can be shown, I will most certainly be swayed by the evidence and start shopping exclusively at Whole Foods, that is the way evidence works, but as of yet I have seen nothing even moderately convincing.
"You see, that is precisely the problem with the article and the study: that the focus is so narrow as to be misunderstood."
That is the way that science works -- you can't just go about testing every aspect of something all at once, the results would be statistical trainwreck. The narrower your study, the more accurate your results will be. The study is not about the health impact of pesticides, and it can't be. If the same team tried to study both simultaneously, the results would be a garbled mess and would be entirely meaningless. I think it goes without saying that expecting them to factor in the environmental impact is beyond absurd -- that would be expecting these scientists to cease being doctors and magically throw their hats in the environmental science ring. Not only is a completely different field of study, it has no relevance to the study at hand. Both of these issues have been addressed elsewhere, and have come up overwhelmingly against organic food.
That is because it was not the focus of the study, and has already been studied to death anyway. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that the pesticides used on our food cause us any harm -- there really is extensive quality control as to what is and is not allowed to be sold to you and it is determined scientifically. If there is any doubt, it will not be sold.
"The point behind organic food is that it's better for the environment, not healthier to eat."
No. No it's not. Organic Food ExposedContrary to popular belief, organic farming, due to it's inherent inefficiencies, is not even close to being sustainable. They need far more land than the Earth can provide, and far more organic material for fertilizer.
And you are absolutely delusion if you believe that organic food is not being billed as being healthier to eat -- they are most certainly doing this, despite the fact that study after study shows that the pesticide levels in non-organic food are nowhere near high enough to cause us harm. It is simply technophobia -- people are afraid of things that they don't understand and therefore want to turn the clock back 150 years on farming.
On a somewhat unrelated note, I want to dispel the myths about natural vs. unnatural. First of all, the definition of the terms are absolutely meaningless, everything that we could ever possibly refer to as unnatural STILL comes from nature. The space shuttle is 100% natural by this definition -- every single piece of that machine came from the Earth and was processed by human beings (who also, consequently, rose from a soup of organic molecules on Earth). If we are going to define "natural" as being unmolested by humans, where do we draw the line? If the plant is cultivated by humans can we still call it natural? How about if we pluck it from the ground, or off of the branch? What if we squeeze the juice out of the fruit to drink it? If we can still call all of these things natural, there is no basis to call any other food product unnatural. This is not even to mention the fact that most of the plants and animals that we eat have been extensively genetically engineered over the centuries through artificial selection. Even if there were a reasonable definition, why would we assume that natural is better anyway? There are plenty of bad things in nature, box jellyfish venom for instance. Are we to assume that box jellyfish venom is less harmful than potassium benzoate, on the grounds that the one was produced through natural selection and the other through human intervention? The whole thing is absurd on its face.
You see, twostix, there is this literary device known as a "rhetorical question". This literary device is used when the writer/speaker knows that the answer is obvious, and will be automatically arrived at by the audience just in the asking of the question. See also: Socratic method.
I find it even more amusing that your answer, while partially correct, is actually not even accurate. Certainly, machinery has been a huge factor, but the answer was "technology" in general, rather than specifically JUST machinery. We have better fertilizers and irrigation technologies. From our knowledge in genetics and biology, we have been able to figure out better crop rotations, breeding methods, and in some cases, how to directly manipulate the genes of plants to bring about a better yield. Technology has given us better ways to preserve the food, so that we don't need everything directly from the market within a few days of being harvested, allowing farmers to greatly increase yield. We have MUCH better transportation systems as well, so that farming needs to be less localized. There are many, many other factors involved in this equation, but I think my point is clear.
F-, twosticks.
Ummm... WTF? All I am pointing out is that you were lambasting another posting for saying that reading a book is more productive than playing a video game, when he said nothing of the sort -- the use of the word 'or' makes it clear that the author considers reading a book to be equally unproductive as playing a video game. Although from your reading comprehension skills, I would say that you ought to read a book every now and again.
I think he writes books lacking technical authenticity because fact checking and research are hard, expensive prospects and the vast majority of Americans are far to dumb to know the difference. Why spend a million dollars on extra research so you can sell a few thousand more copies to the few nerds who give a shit and can tell the difference?
And don't forget the 'not having down's syndrome' background.
Which is, strangely enough, exactly what happens in the @$$clown's next novel!
^^ Reading comprehension fail
Umm... no, it's not. Because of Walmart's bizarre moralizing policies, many creative endeavors end up being curtailed and censored to see the shelves at Walmart. I mean, they censor all the music in their stores! And they don't even always warn you that the album has bleeps! Meanwhile, 10 feet away you can buy the unrated version of Natural Born Killers. I don't get it...
Or, you know, roll it up. That would work too.
"vandalism: if outside the house, how long until vandals steal these to stick on walls, car windows, etc"
What you call a problem I call... awesome
Yes, I am sure "self righteous fools" such as myself frequently run out of things to say to you upon realizing that you are apparently 100% impervious to logic and rational thought.
'These galaxies would have been normal in the early universe, but we just don't see such active galaxies today. Understanding the Green Peas may tell us something about how stars were formed in the early universe and how galaxies evolve.'
"You watch too much movies, dude. Get real."
Nice -- logic fail and grammar fail, all in one short comment!
WTF are you talking about? Total logic fail. Why is it hypocritical to say that something is bad and then not make it against the law? Is it hypocritical for the government to tell us that we need to eat better without outlawing McDonalds and mandating a good diet? Of course not, the folks researching our health NEED to tell us what they are figuring out and what is good and bad for us, but it is not hypocritical for them to let us decide for ourselves whether or not to listen. By your line of reasoning, all fast food joints would be put out of business, you would be chased by a guy with a cattle prod to make sure you run the mandatory 5 miles a day, and government operatives would bust into your bedroom every time you (well, probably not you, but other people) decided to have sex just to make sure that they are wearing a condom. If this were not the case, government funded medical research (which is a very large portion of medical research, btw), would not be allowed to inform you of the risks in the world around you. Public schools would not be able to warn kids about the risks of fatty foods, cigarettes, and unprotected sex. What you are advocating is either fascism or idiocy.
Again, WTF are you talking about? Do you think about these viewpoints before you share them? I am saying that making things against the law does not make people not do them. This is very well backed up by evidence. The most well known example of this is alcohol prohibition -- nobody stopped drinking, alcohol consumption was just pushed underground. This created a huge black market economy and allowed villains like Al Capone to effectively take over the major cities. Because of the fact that alcohol had to be produced by villains as well, there was not quality control. Drinkers had no idea how much alcohol they were getting and the homemade hooch frequently contained some seriously noxious chemicals which rendered many users blind.
Compare this to what we are doing with smoking, and what Portugal has done with drug use. In both cases, we are using education and treatment to reduce the use of these substances, both of which are far more effective.
Oh God no! X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter is a deep flight sim, Battlefront is a garbage, barely playable console game for kids. That would be like asking for a gourmet hamburger and getting something from McDonalds. Actually, no it would be more like someone just taking a dump on a hamburger bun and calling it a burger. So exactly like McDonalds.