If you pay attention, it's only Republicans who use that line as a talking point. Try searching the phrase. First hit is a Republican from Utah with a signed picture of Reagan. Second hit is the National Review.
People can never be made obsolete. Only jobs can be made obsolete.
And again, like I say in every one of these topics, if the benefits of increased efficiency do not accrue to the entire economy, that's a problem with the economic system, not the increased efficiency. Ideally, increased efficiency should abolish the need for some work allowing us to spend more of our time doing things we want. The fact that it actually ends up enriching the rich and leaving the working classes (and now the thinking classes) destitute is a fundamental problem with capitalism.
What makes you think you, as an occasional cigar smoker, are representative in any way of typical tobacco users? Typical tobacco users start smoking cigarrettes in high school. As high schoolers have little disposable cash, doubling the price of a pack of cigarettes is a major obstacle to picking up the habit. Even if they only wait 2-3 years before they start, that's time for a lot of kids to mature and think about what they're doing.
I'm just amazed they found a situation where the conservative canard "If you want less of something, tax it" is actually accurate and relevant. The internet should be subsidized, not taxed. You'll get it all back from an improved economy.
That was the entire point of my post. Precrime is implemented by making them actual (de jure) crimes. Which just creates a new set of precrimes, that authoritarians will want to convert into de jure crimes, and so on. Until everything is criminal.
This is why it's important that only things that do real harm to people are actually classified as crimes. No harm, no foul.
At that age, I would suggest to show them what chemistry can do: blow things up (safely)
Electrolytic hydrolysis is an awesome example. Split 2 H2O with energy into 2 H2 and O2, then light them on fire and get the energy back. Soooo many fundamental principles you can illustrate there. Balancing chemical equations, gas laws, Gibbs energy, oxidation, etc. And at the end of every experiment, you get to make a big boom!
Shame you really need a bench power supply and a fancy glass electrolyitic apparatus to do it though.
I think you overestimate the capability of the average chemistry teachers. If they really knew chemistry, they'd be doing chemistry and making a lot more money. Most often, they just regurgitate what's in the book. There's no reason a clever parent shouldn't be able to replicate or surpass that experience.
Take the average person and ask them some chemistry questions. They will get almost none of them correct. This is the bar you have to pass to make it worthwhile teaching your kid chemistry at home. I don't see how that can be so hard.
This is revisionist it seems. There have been Tea Party protesters with police presence, only they did not keep an ongoing protest for weeks before police moved in.
Tea partiers didn't need to be disruptive to get the attention of the powerful. Their message -- complete and utter corporate control -- was already on the lips of every Republican on the hill. Even the very first Tea Parties were broadcast on national cable networks.
Occupy on the other hand was ignored by the media for weeks before the media realized that an alternative message was gaining traction among the people. Then they went into full character assassination mode.
For the Occupy Wherever people the police did not use truncheons and tear gas on day one when the protesters were being peaceful.
No, they tried to wait it out, and then when they realized that protesters wouldn't stop protesting until their demands were met, brutally violated their first amendment rights to peaceable assembly.
I do not like the tea party. But I can tell you which of the two groups gains the most credibility with the general public and which makes more ground swaying public opinion.
Only because corporations have complete and utter control of the American propaganda system.
Very cool. I figured the fatty nutrient corpuscules would be phagocytosed or something like that. I'll be sure to have some feta cheese around for future salads.
The authorities cannot (at least under current legal doctrine) charge you with a crime you might commit in the future
Yes they can. The trick is to make the warning signs of crime an actual crime. e.g., in some places buying more than a certain amount of pseudoephedrine is a crime in itself, even without any indication that the individual wants to make methamphetamine.
And for that matter, the laws against methamphetamine are a kind of precrime in themselves. Simply possessing methamphetamine doesn't mean that you are going to take it, and taking methamphetamine doesn't mean that you are going to hurt anyone.
So the take home point is that precrime is here, and we've been dealing with it for decades. Not only that, but we're imprisoning people for pre-precrime, and even pre-pre-precrime. Every time you convert a precrime into a crime, you invent a new precrime which will need to be converted into a crime as well. This process never stops.
You don't get charged with "robbery" when you go to jail for smoking crack. You go to jail for "posesion of a controlled substance".
True, but there is no legitimate state interest in stopping crack smoking in and of itself. The (ostensible) legitimate state interest comes from preventing crime, or promoting the general welfare. Both of which involve only potential consequences of crack use.
Prohibiting X as a round about way of preventing potential consequence Y amounts to precrime legislation.
On the consumer front only just recently did home WiFi routers start shipping or start getting IPv6 support, even then finding an ISP that will provision you is next to impossible.
That's what custom firmware and 6 to 4 gateways are for.
policy control over content, you quickly see that the functionality is years behind when applied to IPv6 flows
Fat with your vegetables improves their nutritional content (fat soluble nutrients don't get absorbed without them).
This is an interesting claim. Do you have a reference for it? I'm imagining people being fed broccoli with and without fat, and then serum concentrations of vitamins being tested shortly after. Would be an interesting experiment.
Except that R is the most popular language for statistics. So the name hasn't been a hinderance at all. And it's pretty easy to find documentation for R. Guess what you get if you search google for "R tutorial" or "R one liners"?
Either way - what people do should be what people do on their own; locking people up because they MIGHT do something is a very bad precedent. And where will you stop?
We've already gone down this route. The entire War on Drug Users is predicated on the belief that if we allow people to do drugs they will do bad things. We've been doing this for decades, despite the lack of any evidence for that proposition.
How exactly is "you smoked crack, so you're likely to steal something, therefore you're going to jail" any different from "you searched for how to hotwire a car, so you're likely to steal something, therefore your'e going to jail"?
If you are unable or unwilling to promise to bear arms or perform noncombatant service because of religious training and belief, you may request to leave out those parts of the oath. USCIS may require you to provide documentation from your religious organization explaining its beliefs and stating that you are a member in good standing.
If you are unable or unwilling to take the oath with the words âoeon oathâ and âoeso help me Godâ included, you must notify USCIS that you wish to take a modified Oath of Allegiance. Applicants are not required to provide any evidence or testimony to support a request for this type of modification. See 8 CFR 337.1(b).
What if you're an atheist AND pacifist? Atheists aren't just second class citizens in the US, they may be refused citizenship outright.
Protesting in a way that results in a fine is not something you are supposed to do at all
When the government doesn't respect your right to peaceably assemble, how else are you supposed to protest?
The only protests worth participating in are the ones that could actually change something. Those are the protests that the government will fight with all of its power. That power includes arresting protesters for simply protesting. This is what we saw happen last fall from NY to Oakland.
Think of it this way, if Mubarak had tried to forcibly clear Tahrir square with the excuse of "health and safety", the international community wouldn't have bought that excuse for a second. Yet the US is allowed to get away with claiming "health and safety" as a reason to break up peaceable assembleys like Occupy. And nobody bats an eye.
If you could trust the government to follow the rule of law, you'd have a point. But we're far, far past that point.
Slashdot Mirror
If you pay attention, it's only Republicans who use that line as a talking point. Try searching the phrase. First hit is a Republican from Utah with a signed picture of Reagan. Second hit is the National Review.
People can never be made obsolete. Only jobs can be made obsolete.
And again, like I say in every one of these topics, if the benefits of increased efficiency do not accrue to the entire economy, that's a problem with the economic system, not the increased efficiency. Ideally, increased efficiency should abolish the need for some work allowing us to spend more of our time doing things we want. The fact that it actually ends up enriching the rich and leaving the working classes (and now the thinking classes) destitute is a fundamental problem with capitalism.
Your company's expenses were the same as its income, so you had no profits? That shouldn't be taxed.
I pay tax on both my income and my expenses. Why shouldn't companies do the same?
What makes you think you, as an occasional cigar smoker, are representative in any way of typical tobacco users? Typical tobacco users start smoking cigarrettes in high school. As high schoolers have little disposable cash, doubling the price of a pack of cigarettes is a major obstacle to picking up the habit. Even if they only wait 2-3 years before they start, that's time for a lot of kids to mature and think about what they're doing.
There is such a difference, but the military escapades of the US are well on the murder side, and have been since WWII.
I'm just amazed they found a situation where the conservative canard "If you want less of something, tax it" is actually accurate and relevant. The internet should be subsidized, not taxed. You'll get it all back from an improved economy.
Why would the customer want a relationship with someone who is clueless about what they do?
That was the entire point of my post. Precrime is implemented by making them actual (de jure) crimes. Which just creates a new set of precrimes, that authoritarians will want to convert into de jure crimes, and so on. Until everything is criminal.
This is why it's important that only things that do real harm to people are actually classified as crimes. No harm, no foul.
At that age, I would suggest to show them what chemistry can do: blow things up (safely)
Electrolytic hydrolysis is an awesome example. Split 2 H2O with energy into 2 H2 and O2, then light them on fire and get the energy back. Soooo many fundamental principles you can illustrate there. Balancing chemical equations, gas laws, Gibbs energy, oxidation, etc. And at the end of every experiment, you get to make a big boom!
Shame you really need a bench power supply and a fancy glass electrolyitic apparatus to do it though.
from building a mini fire extinguisher to writing with invisible ink.
That's nice, but we're talking about chemistry.
I think you overestimate the capability of the average chemistry teachers. If they really knew chemistry, they'd be doing chemistry and making a lot more money. Most often, they just regurgitate what's in the book. There's no reason a clever parent shouldn't be able to replicate or surpass that experience.
Take the average person and ask them some chemistry questions. They will get almost none of them correct. This is the bar you have to pass to make it worthwhile teaching your kid chemistry at home. I don't see how that can be so hard.
Do you really need to "touch" your new PC or laptop?
If it has a keyboard, yes. They keyboard is the most important part of any computer.
highly-efficient Circuit City or Best Buy
Really?
This is revisionist it seems. There have been Tea Party protesters with police presence, only they did not keep an ongoing protest for weeks before police moved in.
Tea partiers didn't need to be disruptive to get the attention of the powerful. Their message -- complete and utter corporate control -- was already on the lips of every Republican on the hill. Even the very first Tea Parties were broadcast on national cable networks.
Occupy on the other hand was ignored by the media for weeks before the media realized that an alternative message was gaining traction among the people. Then they went into full character assassination mode.
For the Occupy Wherever people the police did not use truncheons and tear gas on day one when the protesters were being peaceful.
No, they tried to wait it out, and then when they realized that protesters wouldn't stop protesting until their demands were met, brutally violated their first amendment rights to peaceable assembly.
I do not like the tea party. But I can tell you which of the two groups gains the most credibility with the general public and which makes more ground swaying public opinion.
Only because corporations have complete and utter control of the American propaganda system.
Very cool. I figured the fatty nutrient corpuscules would be phagocytosed or something like that. I'll be sure to have some feta cheese around for future salads.
The authorities cannot (at least under current legal doctrine) charge you with a crime you might commit in the future
Yes they can. The trick is to make the warning signs of crime an actual crime. e.g., in some places buying more than a certain amount of pseudoephedrine is a crime in itself, even without any indication that the individual wants to make methamphetamine.
And for that matter, the laws against methamphetamine are a kind of precrime in themselves. Simply possessing methamphetamine doesn't mean that you are going to take it, and taking methamphetamine doesn't mean that you are going to hurt anyone.
So the take home point is that precrime is here, and we've been dealing with it for decades. Not only that, but we're imprisoning people for pre-precrime, and even pre-pre-precrime. Every time you convert a precrime into a crime, you invent a new precrime which will need to be converted into a crime as well. This process never stops.
You don't get charged with "robbery" when you go to jail for smoking crack. You go to jail for "posesion of a controlled substance".
True, but there is no legitimate state interest in stopping crack smoking in and of itself. The (ostensible) legitimate state interest comes from preventing crime, or promoting the general welfare. Both of which involve only potential consequences of crack use.
Prohibiting X as a round about way of preventing potential consequence Y amounts to precrime legislation.
On the consumer front only just recently did home WiFi routers start shipping or start getting IPv6 support, even then finding an ISP that will provision you is next to impossible.
That's what custom firmware and 6 to 4 gateways are for.
policy control over content, you quickly see that the functionality is years behind when applied to IPv6 flows
That's a feature, not a bug.
Fat with your vegetables improves their nutritional content (fat soluble nutrients don't get absorbed without them).
This is an interesting claim. Do you have a reference for it? I'm imagining people being fed broccoli with and without fat, and then serum concentrations of vitamins being tested shortly after. Would be an interesting experiment.
Except that R is the most popular language for statistics. So the name hasn't been a hinderance at all. And it's pretty easy to find documentation for R. Guess what you get if you search google for "R tutorial" or "R one liners"?
Either way - what people do should be what people do on their own; locking people up because
they MIGHT do something is a very bad precedent. And where will you stop?
We've already gone down this route. The entire War on Drug Users is predicated on the belief that if we allow people to do drugs they will do bad things. We've been doing this for decades, despite the lack of any evidence for that proposition.
How exactly is "you smoked crack, so you're likely to steal something, therefore you're going to jail" any different from "you searched for how to hotwire a car, so you're likely to steal something, therefore your'e going to jail"?
If you are unable or unwilling to promise to bear arms or perform noncombatant service because of religious training and belief, you may request to leave out those parts of the oath. USCIS may require you to provide documentation from your religious organization explaining its beliefs and stating that you are a member in good standing.
If you are unable or unwilling to take the oath with the words âoeon oathâ and âoeso help me Godâ included, you must notify USCIS that you wish to take a modified Oath of Allegiance. Applicants are not required to provide any evidence or testimony to support a request for this type of modification. See 8 CFR 337.1(b).
What if you're an atheist AND pacifist? Atheists aren't just second class citizens in the US, they may be refused citizenship outright.
Facilitating murder is just as bad as murder. That you don't wield the weapon yourself is no excuse.
Protesting in a way that results in a fine is not something you are supposed to do at all
When the government doesn't respect your right to peaceably assemble, how else are you supposed to protest?
The only protests worth participating in are the ones that could actually change something. Those are the protests that the government will fight with all of its power. That power includes arresting protesters for simply protesting. This is what we saw happen last fall from NY to Oakland.
Think of it this way, if Mubarak had tried to forcibly clear Tahrir square with the excuse of "health and safety", the international community wouldn't have bought that excuse for a second. Yet the US is allowed to get away with claiming "health and safety" as a reason to break up peaceable assembleys like Occupy. And nobody bats an eye.
If you could trust the government to follow the rule of law, you'd have a point. But we're far, far past that point.
Because those are the only two options.