I prefer to let judges sort out what is a good sentence, and not the minimum set by a politician.
Then you get a judge who does not agree with a law and imposes no sentence thereby negating the law. That is not up to the judge.
Most civilize countries take appointing crown attorneys out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of bureaucrats so patronage is not an issue.
And bureaucrats do not have agendas and never take bribes? And who hired the bureaucrats? Politicians. What stops the politician from telling the bureaucrats who to hire?
The wife of a murder victim shouldn't have any say in the length of the sentence.
I was only pointing out that the term "overly long" is defined differently bu different people. What may be overly olng to one person may not be to another.
During the interview he claimed that he did this to show that with this single user account he could get records from patients who were not with this doctor.
When someone dies because a patient's physician is not available and the records can not be accessed I bet you will have a different opinion about this issue. I would rather have all doctors have access to my records but I would also like to have my doctor informed when another doctors looked at them. That way my doctor, or his staff more likely, can monitor and question who has been accessing my records.
Even support people from the company who maintains the system had access to patient records. That's a pretty big f*ckup.
When an issue is reported and/or a bug needs to be fixed it has to be replicated. How can someone replicate a bug if they do not have the same access as the user reporting the bug?
It is this kind of lame 'security' that make a lot of people not want to participate, including myself
Any system that uses user id/password credentials is only as secure as the people who hold the credentials. When users do not keep their credentials secure it is the user's fault not the system. What alternative is there than educating the people who hold the credentials?
A country-wide central health record is a goldmine for insurance companies, at the expense of the people.
It is a gold mine but to get that gold there would have to be a great deal of data accessed which would be very obvious and easily prosecuted. I would love a national database that contained my health records. That way when I am in another province the attending physician will have access to all my records which may save my life. The small chance that an insurance company may use my records in a marketing campaign is worth the risk.
Move to a system that focuses more on rehabilitation, retraining and (when an external element is a factor) removal of external factors contributing to the criminality.
Rehabilitation and retraining only work for people who want to be rehabilitated or retrained. There is an old saying; "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink". As for "removal of external factors contributing to the criminality", how do you remove alcohol, drugs, gambling, sexual frustration, poverty, etc from someone who is not in prison. Once a convict is released all these "external factors" are available again.
You still isolate from society (the sole benefit of prison) but with reduced or eliminated punitive element, there is no risk of punishing an innocent person who happens to be cojoined to someone who is guilty.
Isn't one punishing an innocent person if that person is isolated from society through no fault of their own?
What system should replace the USA system of justice that jails more citizens per capita than any other western nation?
For starters: get rid of long sentences for minor drug possession
Agreed
Get rid of elected district attorneys so they can pursue justice instead of elections
Then they will be appointed which brings up the issue of patronage and being controlled by the one who appointed the DA.
Get rid of over broad laws with long sentences for minor crimes.
If you are referring to maximum sentences the issue is not single counts but whether sentences are consecutive or concurrent. For example someone who steels over $5000 may get 6 months in jail. What about someone who steals over $500 in 100 separate instances. Would ge get 6 months, sentences concurrently, or 50 years, sentences consecutively. This is why the max sentence may be ten years so he can be sentenced to ten years on each count to be served concurrently. The defendant would be found guilty of every count and serve a reasonable time for the crime. The problem comes when someone states that the defendant is facing 1,000 in prison. That would only happen if the sentences were consecutive.
Get rid of 'three strikes' laws
It has been shown that most crimes are done by a small portion of the population. The revolving door system does not work. Too many times criminals do relatively minor crimes, go to gail, get out in 6 months and di it again. There are instances where some criminals have over ten conviction for the same offence. How does one stop them. By the way "three strikes" is only for felonies.
Get rid of overly long minimum sentences
What do you consider overly long asnd for what crimes? This is a very broad statement. What may seem overly long to you may not be overly long for the wife of a murder victim.
Most of these statements are simplistic solutions to complex problems. What are your alternatives?
Reference please. I don't see anything in the article about him informing the company he had the credentials before he used them, According to the article he used the credentials and reported the results to a media outlet.
If you look into the earthquake issue it was not for failing to predict the earthquake, as the headline says, but was for not correcting a spokesman who stated that, since there had been a number of minor earthquakes in the region, the stress in the fault had been relieved and there was no chance of a large earthquake. They were convicted because a number of other scientists confirmed that such a statement was patently false. That caused many people to not take precautions and many people died because of it. Had the statement been "There is a decreased risk in a large earthquake occurring", a true statement, they would have been in the clear.
According to this the population figures are as follows 1990 1,027,974 2000 951,270 2010 713,777
Between 1990 and 2000 the decrease was 10%. Between 2000 and 2010 the decrease was 24%. So in the ten years that energy use decreased 10% the population decreased 25%. In the 20 years the population actually decreased by 30%. The population of Detroit was at a high around 1950, at 1.8M, and has been declining ever since.
He could have sent the user id and password to the company stating how he had obtained it and the company would have been made aware of the situation. Instead he decided to be flashy and break the law.
It would be significant if the entire US consumption dropped by 10% but that still is not plummeting and not what occurred. I would say it would take at least a 30% drop to be plummeting. Furthermore the population of Detroit has dropped by 20% so on a per person basis electricity consumption has actually increased by about 12%.
38% is the low hanging fruit. To take an existing building to higher inefficiencies gets exponentially harder and there may be a point that it is impossible to improve upon and still have the building functional. Sure new buildings can have very high inefficiencies but it will take a very long time to rebuild NY City.
According to this document the retrofit will reduce "consumption of watts and BTUs by a guaranteed 38.4%". Not quite 90%. That would require changing the steam plant and electricity production.
The ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN have just announced the discovery of a new particle which is consistent with a Standard Model Higgs boson. There is still a lot of work to do to confirm whether this really is the Higgs, and if so whether it is a Standard Model Higgs, but this is a major result
February 2013
The Higgs boson particle was first discovered by the LHC in 2012
Did I miss the "lot of work" between July 2012 and December 2012 that confirmed that the particle "is the Higgs, and if so whether it is a Standard Model Higgs".? Wow, I must have been asleep. According to this maybe not.
However some kinds of extensions to the Standard Model would also show very similar results based on other particles that are still being understood long after their discovery, it may take years to be sure, and decades to fully understand the particle that has been found.
They figured out why the emergency break was locked. It was because the key was turned off. Had the key been turned on the car would have rolled onto the flatbed without problem. The same thing occurred when they tried to get the car off the flatbed.
Should scientists who have made negative statements about Intelligent Design be excluded from textbook committees?
She was the chair of the committee and therefore has much more power than a regular committee member. As chair there is an even higher standard for impartiality. If one has already made negative statements about something they should be excluded as they have already made up their mind and and "investigation" is worthless.
Juries aren't allowed to ask questions or investigate, while that is expressly the function of this regulatory panel.
Juries are allowed to ask questions about the law but they are not allowed to come to a conclusion before the trial and deliberation is over. The key here is to have an open mind until the investigation is concluded. If one has already published statements about a subject then they are rarely open to changing it. To change a published statement would be admitting they were wrong and few people would risk their credibility by doing that. That is bias and will effect the outcome.
There is a simple way to prove it. Have someone else who is acceptable to both NYT and Tesla motors repeat the trip with the following differences; 1. Video the whole trip. 2. Charge to full at each stop. Compare the logs from both trips and report the results. Let the readers decide who is telling the truth. How about we have more reporters telling the facts and fewer commentators telling us how to think.
Not hiring from industry ensures that armatures make critical decisions.
So we both agree that the revolving door must stop. Coming out of industry should be easy; getting back in should be hard. Regulators need experience in how industry works so they can understand how to write solid regulations that industry can not get around.
Please be careful with using absolutes like "nothing". There are many regulations that get enacted that industry does not like. Some things do get done. Using absolutes that are easily disproved just weakens the argument.
There is a catch 22 in not hiring from industry. On one hand they may be influenced by industry. On the other hand they are the people who know most about the industry. Would you really want regulations being made by someone with no experience in the industry? That is a recipe for bad legislation.
If anything it should be the other way around. That someone who has worked in a regulatory area can not work for industry for a certain period of time.
I would hold a scientist on a review panel to the same standard as I would a jury. If the jury members made statements about the guilt or innocence of a defendant before the trial was over they wold be removed from the jury. The same thing applies to a review panel. The review is not over and the evidence is not complete yet someone is make statements about the safety of the chemicals under review. I have nothing to do with the chemical industry but I would want that scientist removed.
Just as your statements make me believe you are a pessimist. An idealist would have said he could walk up to any officer and turn himself in. I am under no illusions that any police officers who see him will shoot first and ask questions later. Notice that I suggested that he make himself helpless and have witnesses. Again, please use accurate language. IE "Many of the LAPD have no intention of letting him live". There are at least a few people in the LAPD that want him alive so he can spend the rest of his life rotting in prison. It does not matter what the intentions of some of the LAPD; they still have to follow the law and will not shoot a defenseless man in front of witnesses.
There are four main resources used when installing software; CPU, mass storage, RAM and network. The problem is that these resources can vary greatly in speed. In general the process goes like in the following order; download (network speed+HD speed), unzip (CPU+HD speed + RAM capacity), Install (CPU + HD speed +RAM capacity and maybe some network). The issue comes in the estimate as to how long each stage takes. For example, a slow system hooked up to a fact net connection would zip through stage 1 and then stall on stage 2.
There is also the issue of multitasking. The install may be part way through stage 2 and then some other disk intensive process may kick in and grind it to a halt. One may be part way through a download and your torrent client may find lots of peers to talk to.
The problem with progress bars is that they attempt to use recent past performance to predict how much longer something should take. Due to the variability in performance and resource allocation the past performance has little to do with future performance; even seconds later. I have seen a number of install programs that no longer have a progress bar but a scanner that keeps moving to indicate something is happening but they don't know how long it will take. I prefer a scanner or a % complete bar.
He does not have to surrender directly to a police officer. All he would have to do is call local media telling them where he is, cuff his own hands behind his back and lay face down in an open area with his feet crossed. The media will arrive and then call police. He would be completely safe. Or her could call any public defender and surrender to them.
Actually no I don't. Many people see every member of a group as the same and paint them all with the wrongdoings of some of them. Too many people use the terms "the Government", "the media", "the police", "politicians", etc as if they all acted the same. All they see is the uniform or title and think they know everything about the person. If you meant "some members of the LAPD" then why didn't you say it.
As an interesting aside I think it is strange how bad things that happen are usually attributed to the whole organization but good things that happen are usually attributed to the person that did it.
That wasn't even my main point which was that it is difficult to peacefully apprehend someone who is shooting at you.
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer to let judges sort out what is a good sentence, and not the minimum set by a politician.
Then you get a judge who does not agree with a law and imposes no sentence thereby negating the law. That is not up to the judge.
Most civilize countries take appointing crown attorneys out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of bureaucrats so patronage is not an issue.
And bureaucrats do not have agendas and never take bribes? And who hired the bureaucrats? Politicians. What stops the politician from telling the bureaucrats who to hire?
The wife of a murder victim shouldn't have any say in the length of the sentence.
I was only pointing out that the term "overly long" is defined differently bu different people. What may be overly olng to one person may not be to another.
During the interview he claimed that he did this to show that with this single user account he could get records from patients who were not with this doctor.
When someone dies because a patient's physician is not available and the records can not be accessed I bet you will have a different opinion about this issue. I would rather have all doctors have access to my records but I would also like to have my doctor informed when another doctors looked at them. That way my doctor, or his staff more likely, can monitor and question who has been accessing my records.
Even support people from the company who maintains the system had access to patient records. That's a pretty big f*ckup.
When an issue is reported and/or a bug needs to be fixed it has to be replicated. How can someone replicate a bug if they do not have the same access as the user reporting the bug?
It is this kind of lame 'security' that make a lot of people not want to participate, including myself
Any system that uses user id/password credentials is only as secure as the people who hold the credentials. When users do not keep their credentials secure it is the user's fault not the system. What alternative is there than educating the people who hold the credentials?
A country-wide central health record is a goldmine for insurance companies, at the expense of the people.
It is a gold mine but to get that gold there would have to be a great deal of data accessed which would be very obvious and easily prosecuted. I would love a national database that contained my health records. That way when I am in another province the attending physician will have access to all my records which may save my life. The small chance that an insurance company may use my records in a marketing campaign is worth the risk.
Move to a system that focuses more on rehabilitation, retraining and (when an external element is a factor) removal of external factors contributing to the criminality.
Rehabilitation and retraining only work for people who want to be rehabilitated or retrained. There is an old saying; "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink". As for "removal of external factors contributing to the criminality", how do you remove alcohol, drugs, gambling, sexual frustration, poverty, etc from someone who is not in prison. Once a convict is released all these "external factors" are available again.
You still isolate from society (the sole benefit of prison) but with reduced or eliminated punitive element, there is no risk of punishing an innocent person who happens to be cojoined to someone who is guilty.
Isn't one punishing an innocent person if that person is isolated from society through no fault of their own?
What system should replace the USA system of justice that jails more citizens per capita than any other western nation?
For starters:
get rid of long sentences for minor drug possession
Agreed
Get rid of elected district attorneys so they can pursue justice instead of elections
Then they will be appointed which brings up the issue of patronage and being controlled by the one who appointed the DA.
Get rid of over broad laws with long sentences for minor crimes.
If you are referring to maximum sentences the issue is not single counts but whether sentences are consecutive or concurrent. For example someone who steels over $5000 may get 6 months in jail. What about someone who steals over $500 in 100 separate instances. Would ge get 6 months, sentences concurrently, or 50 years, sentences consecutively. This is why the max sentence may be ten years so he can be sentenced to ten years on each count to be served concurrently. The defendant would be found guilty of every count and serve a reasonable time for the crime. The problem comes when someone states that the defendant is facing 1,000 in prison. That would only happen if the sentences were consecutive.
Get rid of 'three strikes' laws
It has been shown that most crimes are done by a small portion of the population. The revolving door system does not work. Too many times criminals do relatively minor crimes, go to gail, get out in 6 months and di it again. There are instances where some criminals have over ten conviction for the same offence. How does one stop them. By the way "three strikes" is only for felonies.
Get rid of overly long minimum sentences
What do you consider overly long asnd for what crimes? This is a very broad statement. What may seem overly long to you may not be overly long for the wife of a murder victim.
Most of these statements are simplistic solutions to complex problems. What are your alternatives?
Reference please. I don't see anything in the article about him informing the company he had the credentials before he used them, According to the article he used the credentials and reported the results to a media outlet.
If you look into the earthquake issue it was not for failing to predict the earthquake, as the headline says, but was for not correcting a spokesman who stated that, since there had been a number of minor earthquakes in the region, the stress in the fault had been relieved and there was no chance of a large earthquake. They were convicted because a number of other scientists confirmed that such a statement was patently false. That caused many people to not take precautions and many people died because of it. Had the statement been "There is a decreased risk in a large earthquake occurring", a true statement, they would have been in the clear.
According to this the population figures are as follows
1990 1,027,974
2000 951,270
2010 713,777
Between 1990 and 2000 the decrease was 10%. Between 2000 and 2010 the decrease was 24%. So in the ten years that energy use decreased 10% the population decreased 25%. In the 20 years the population actually decreased by 30%. The population of Detroit was at a high around 1950, at 1.8M, and has been declining ever since.
He could have sent the user id and password to the company stating how he had obtained it and the company would have been made aware of the situation. Instead he decided to be flashy and break the law.
It would be significant if the entire US consumption dropped by 10% but that still is not plummeting and not what occurred. I would say it would take at least a 30% drop to be plummeting. Furthermore the population of Detroit has dropped by 20% so on a per person basis electricity consumption has actually increased by about 12%.
38% is the low hanging fruit. To take an existing building to higher inefficiencies gets exponentially harder and there may be a point that it is impossible to improve upon and still have the building functional. Sure new buildings can have very high inefficiencies but it will take a very long time to rebuild NY City.
According to this document the retrofit will reduce "consumption of watts and BTUs by a guaranteed 38.4%". Not quite 90%. That would require changing the steam plant and electricity production.
July 2012
The ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN have just announced the discovery of a new particle which is consistent with a Standard Model Higgs boson. There is still a lot of work to do to confirm whether this really is the Higgs, and if so whether it is a Standard Model Higgs, but this is a major result
February 2013
The Higgs boson particle was first discovered by the LHC in 2012
Did I miss the "lot of work" between July 2012 and December 2012 that confirmed that the particle "is the Higgs, and if so whether it is a Standard Model Higgs".? Wow, I must have been asleep. According to this maybe not.
However some kinds of extensions to the Standard Model would also show very similar results based on other particles that are still being understood long after their discovery, it may take years to be sure, and decades to fully understand the particle that has been found.
Population decrease of 20% does not match and energy decrease of 10%. It is off by a factor of 2.
According to this article Detroit power consumption has dropped by 10% in eleven years. I would not call that plummeting..
They figured out why the emergency break was locked. It was because the key was turned off. Had the key been turned on the car would have rolled onto the flatbed without problem. The same thing occurred when they tried to get the car off the flatbed.
Should scientists who have made negative statements about Intelligent Design be excluded from textbook committees?
She was the chair of the committee and therefore has much more power than a regular committee member. As chair there is an even higher standard for impartiality. If one has already made negative statements about something they should be excluded as they have already made up their mind and and "investigation" is worthless.
Juries aren't allowed to ask questions or investigate, while that is expressly the function of this regulatory panel.
Juries are allowed to ask questions about the law but they are not allowed to come to a conclusion before the trial and deliberation is over. The key here is to have an open mind until the investigation is concluded. If one has already published statements about a subject then they are rarely open to changing it. To change a published statement would be admitting they were wrong and few people would risk their credibility by doing that. That is bias and will effect the outcome.
The word is a cross between deception and deceit.
There is a simple way to prove it. Have someone else who is acceptable to both NYT and Tesla motors repeat the trip with the following differences;
1. Video the whole trip.
2. Charge to full at each stop.
Compare the logs from both trips and report the results. Let the readers decide who is telling the truth. How about we have more reporters telling the facts and fewer commentators telling us how to think.
Not hiring from industry ensures that armatures make critical decisions.
So we both agree that the revolving door must stop. Coming out of industry should be easy; getting back in should be hard. Regulators need experience in how industry works so they can understand how to write solid regulations that industry can not get around.
Please be careful with using absolutes like "nothing". There are many regulations that get enacted that industry does not like. Some things do get done. Using absolutes that are easily disproved just weakens the argument.
There is a catch 22 in not hiring from industry. On one hand they may be influenced by industry. On the other hand they are the people who know most about the industry. Would you really want regulations being made by someone with no experience in the industry? That is a recipe for bad legislation.
If anything it should be the other way around. That someone who has worked in a regulatory area can not work for industry for a certain period of time.
I would hold a scientist on a review panel to the same standard as I would a jury. If the jury members made statements about the guilt or innocence of a defendant before the trial was over they wold be removed from the jury. The same thing applies to a review panel. The review is not over and the evidence is not complete yet someone is make statements about the safety of the chemicals under review. I have nothing to do with the chemical industry but I would want that scientist removed.
Just as your statements make me believe you are a pessimist. An idealist would have said he could walk up to any officer and turn himself in. I am under no illusions that any police officers who see him will shoot first and ask questions later. Notice that I suggested that he make himself helpless and have witnesses. Again, please use accurate language. IE "Many of the LAPD have no intention of letting him live". There are at least a few people in the LAPD that want him alive so he can spend the rest of his life rotting in prison. It does not matter what the intentions of some of the LAPD; they still have to follow the law and will not shoot a defenseless man in front of witnesses.
There are four main resources used when installing software; CPU, mass storage, RAM and network. The problem is that these resources can vary greatly in speed. In general the process goes like in the following order; download (network speed+HD speed), unzip (CPU+HD speed + RAM capacity), Install (CPU + HD speed +RAM capacity and maybe some network). The issue comes in the estimate as to how long each stage takes. For example, a slow system hooked up to a fact net connection would zip through stage 1 and then stall on stage 2.
There is also the issue of multitasking. The install may be part way through stage 2 and then some other disk intensive process may kick in and grind it to a halt. One may be part way through a download and your torrent client may find lots of peers to talk to.
The problem with progress bars is that they attempt to use recent past performance to predict how much longer something should take. Due to the variability in performance and resource allocation the past performance has little to do with future performance; even seconds later. I have seen a number of install programs that no longer have a progress bar but a scanner that keeps moving to indicate something is happening but they don't know how long it will take. I prefer a scanner or a % complete bar.
He does not have to surrender directly to a police officer. All he would have to do is call local media telling them where he is, cuff his own hands behind his back and lay face down in an open area with his feet crossed. The media will arrive and then call police. He would be completely safe. Or her could call any public defender and surrender to them.
Actually no I don't. Many people see every member of a group as the same and paint them all with the wrongdoings of some of them. Too many people use the terms "the Government", "the media", "the police", "politicians", etc as if they all acted the same. All they see is the uniform or title and think they know everything about the person. If you meant "some members of the LAPD" then why didn't you say it.
As an interesting aside I think it is strange how bad things that happen are usually attributed to the whole organization but good things that happen are usually attributed to the person that did it.
That wasn't even my main point which was that it is difficult to peacefully apprehend someone who is shooting at you.