I'm opposed to oppression of offensive speech because it is so bad that intelligent people learn better why they shouldn't use it when they see it.
It seems odd to question the legitimacy of a person's faith on the basis of whether they translate a phrase a certain way. Kind of like you can't be Jewish if you turned on a light on Shabbat, or you can't be Catholic if you failed to read the Pope's latest proclamation.
Thats not MORE punishment, thats the same punishment we all face, loss of prospects.
If all prospects are equal, sure. But (1) nobody can hire the disbarred attorney as an attorney, even if they want to, and (2) it is a crime for him to work as an attorney. Felons who work in other fields can be hired, it's just hard for them to find a job, and they are rarely legally prohibited from working in a profession they've dedicated their lives to.
Well, if a hacker can go to jail for hacking some online system then disclosing how they did it (to improve security, without even charging service fees), then Lawyers should face the same punishment too.
Actually, lawyer face more punishment. Not only can they go to jail and get disbarred, but after they get out of jail, it will be much harder for them to get a job again--actually, it will be illegal for them to work as lawyers unless the bar re-admits them.
I'm pretty sure BC used to have the same thing in 70s because I remember them in use at that time, yet didn't touch foot in Ontario until decades later. Those bags seems to have gone out of use since. That might be due to a recycling issue. The bags use less plastic than the gallon jugs, but the plastic in the bags might not be the recyclable type.
Much less common in Ontario than they used to be, but still available.
The US has a health care system? This is news to me.
The US has lots of health-care systems, including some that are funded by The federal government. In fact, we are going broke in part because of those programs. We also have quite a few great docs and medical centers. If you are sick and your insurance is good enough (or you are wealthy enough, or the doc is also nice), and you know how to find the right doc, it is some of the best care in the world.
We also have bad medical care, on a par with or below what most Canadians get, for example, in a lot of our Podunk hospitals. (Their fedgov has just dropped the ball on a huge portion of the bill for health, so the delay times are going to get even longer).
What we lack is complete coverage of the population, coverage that makes it possible to be a rational economic actor, or good preventative care. We also have a really phenomenally stupid way of coupling health care to employment.
Juries can pretty much do what they want, and then they only get overturned if it would be impossible for a reasonable jury to come out the way they did. I don't even thinks that it will matter if they were all high and determined their votes by flipping coins; so long as it is *possible* that a reasonable jury would come out with the verdict they picked. The exceptions lie for things like reading about the trial in the media rather than only learning about it from the witnesses and other evidence.
Witness testimony is bad, but courts pretend it isn't. Overturn on appeal isn't guaranteed, the question on appeal would be whether any reasonable jury could conclude the driver was drunk--fifteen witnesses say yes, one test says no, an appeals panel could say a reasonable jury was entitled to weigh the testimony of fifteen witnesses above the test.
The question in criminal law is usually "beyond a reasonable doubt" in light of all the evidence. That includes drug tests AND testimony. If you have a drug test that showed a BAC of 0.0 and fifteen priests lined up to say they smelled alcohol on a driver's breath after he killed dear old Mrs. Compton, a guilty verdict is not an impossibility.
Based on no empirical evidence, I am guessing that rapes are actually more likely to lead to pregnancy than consensual sex because of modern family planning. A woman who is expecting sex is more likely to be using birth control than a woman who is raped.
The CIA has had the same problem, actually--I have heard complaints from their people that the single biggest problem they had was the single-year budget process, and that multi-year budgeting would make their planning much, much, much easier.
No, on 911. Also, even if there were not other measures in place (e.g. background checks, multiple people in the cockpit, etc...), you could always keep the absurd security for the pilots only.
It's not that they're not doing a "good job"--most interactions with them are fine. It's that they're doing the wrong job.
There are enough horror stories that they get a bad rap, sure. But the bigger point is that they are doing a job that it is stupid for us to be paying for. It inconveniences every traveller in the US and it does not make us significantly safer. Secure the cockpit doors and stop worrying about bombs--if you secure the cockpit doors, all they can do is blow up the plane, and they can blow up a bus so it's a ridiculous waste of money and time to be providing absurd security.
9/11 was (1) an attack that could only work once and (2) about flying the planes. Take away the ability to fly the planes, and the plane is no longer a particularly useful terror target, it's just a target.
Don't get me wrong--I'm happy that there are people working to make terrorist attacks on the US harder. I just don't believe that the TSA is a useful way to spend those resources.
Everybody holds congress in contempt. Not many people in their right minds act contemptuously toward Article III judges. Among other things, if the TSA gets the judiciary mad at them, the TSA will begin to find the Fourth Amendment much less friendly.
Problem is, there's so much politics in the peer-review process already that the argument isn't entirely unbelievable, it's just highly unlikely. Anyone with an ear to the ground hears rumblings about science bankrolled by organizations with an agenda and presented as neutral, or about people who have been denied publication because someone on an editorial board was doing the same work and didn't want to get scooped, or about selection of big names for journals because they were big names rather than because their work was great, or about confirmation bias in clinical trials where a doc will almost subconsciously discount symptoms he doesn't like.
Obviously it's not enough to invalidate science, but the political problems make results less trustworthy and gives farfetched conspiracy theories (i.e. no global warming) a ring of truth to them. That's enough to keep them alive among the ignorant, especially because most people don't have time to learn the science themselves.
Killing people in an organization usually makes the organization weaker. So, too, does the expenditure of resources. These are the premises on which war is based. Whether it is done with swords, machine guns, bioweapons, nukes, or drones.
The choice of weapon may alter the truth of that premise by altering the willingness of people to fund, to assist, to kill for, or to die for those organizations. It will also alter the cost per kill.
As a tool, drones obviously help to kill people. The question is whether they are cost-effective and what the psychological consequences are.
Parts of the DOJ are very highly respected. The SG's office (which I think is technically part of Justice) and the Civil Right's Division, for example. And even in the slightly less-highly-respected parts, there are some very highly respected and incredibly nice people.
There are also at least some assholes and even some incompetents, but the asshole bit is kind of a natural consequence of how the US criminal justice system works. The assholes generally mean well, but they are too quick to trample on the rights of an accused criminal. This is less of a problem on the federal level, however, than it is locally.
Have you ever heard of "collateral damage"? This Six Strikes nonsense doesn't require any courts to be involved (which means there will be no standard of evidence) and therefore will certainly affect innocents.
On the other hand, courts don't give you six strikes, either. =)
IIRC, roundabouts tend to result in having more accidents but the accidents that you have are much less serious. So they're a better choice for spreading risk.
Legal malpractice claims happen, although less often than makes sense. Kind of like how doctors stick together, but you can still find doctors who testify against serious malpractice.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, service members are *more* likely, not less, to do so. (Based on anecdotal evidence).
If someone is willing to kill over an offensive movie, ask them to stop.
If they don't, that's what marines are for.
I'm opposed to oppression of offensive speech because it is so bad that intelligent people learn better why they shouldn't use it when they see it.
It seems odd to question the legitimacy of a person's faith on the basis of whether they translate a phrase a certain way. Kind of like you can't be Jewish if you turned on a light on Shabbat, or you can't be Catholic if you failed to read the Pope's latest proclamation.
Thats not MORE punishment, thats the same punishment we all face, loss of prospects.
If all prospects are equal, sure. But (1) nobody can hire the disbarred attorney as an attorney, even if they want to, and (2) it is a crime for him to work as an attorney. Felons who work in other fields can be hired, it's just hard for them to find a job, and they are rarely legally prohibited from working in a profession they've dedicated their lives to.
Could the lawyers get disbarred?
Well, if a hacker can go to jail for hacking some online system then disclosing how they did it (to improve security, without even charging service fees), then Lawyers should face the same punishment too.
Actually, lawyer face more punishment. Not only can they go to jail and get disbarred, but after they get out of jail, it will be much harder for them to get a job again--actually, it will be illegal for them to work as lawyers unless the bar re-admits them.
I'm pretty sure BC used to have the same thing in 70s because I remember them in use at that time, yet didn't touch foot in Ontario until decades later. Those bags seems to have gone out of use since. That might be due to a recycling issue. The bags use less plastic than the gallon jugs, but the plastic in the bags might not be the recyclable type.
Much less common in Ontario than they used to be, but still available.
The US has a health care system? This is news to me.
The US has lots of health-care systems, including some that are funded by The federal government. In fact, we are going broke in part because of those programs. We also have quite a few great docs and medical centers. If you are sick and your insurance is good enough (or you are wealthy enough, or the doc is also nice), and you know how to find the right doc, it is some of the best care in the world.
We also have bad medical care, on a par with or below what most Canadians get, for example, in a lot of our Podunk hospitals. (Their fedgov has just dropped the ball on a huge portion of the bill for health, so the delay times are going to get even longer).
What we lack is complete coverage of the population, coverage that makes it possible to be a rational economic actor, or good preventative care. We also have a really phenomenally stupid way of coupling health care to employment.
Juries can pretty much do what they want, and then they only get overturned if it would be impossible for a reasonable jury to come out the way they did. I don't even thinks that it will matter if they were all high and determined their votes by flipping coins; so long as it is *possible* that a reasonable jury would come out with the verdict they picked. The exceptions lie for things like reading about the trial in the media rather than only learning about it from the witnesses and other evidence.
NASA employs great people and okay people, just like other places. They're not magical.
Witness testimony is bad, but courts pretend it isn't. Overturn on appeal isn't guaranteed, the question on appeal would be whether any reasonable jury could conclude the driver was drunk--fifteen witnesses say yes, one test says no, an appeals panel could say a reasonable jury was entitled to weigh the testimony of fifteen witnesses above the test.
The question in criminal law is usually "beyond a reasonable doubt" in light of all the evidence. That includes drug tests AND testimony. If you have a drug test that showed a BAC of 0.0 and fifteen priests lined up to say they smelled alcohol on a driver's breath after he killed dear old Mrs. Compton, a guilty verdict is not an impossibility.
If we stick our collective heads in the sand for long enough...
they will burn off.
Based on no empirical evidence, I am guessing that rapes are actually more likely to lead to pregnancy than consensual sex because of modern family planning. A woman who is expecting sex is more likely to be using birth control than a woman who is raped.
The CIA has had the same problem, actually--I have heard complaints from their people that the single biggest problem they had was the single-year budget process, and that multi-year budgeting would make their planning much, much, much easier.
They were going to give a non-answer answer anyway. This is just an attempt to avoid any coverage of the issue.
No, on 911. Also, even if there were not other measures in place (e.g. background checks, multiple people in the cockpit, etc...), you could always keep the absurd security for the pilots only.
It's not that they're not doing a "good job"--most interactions with them are fine. It's that they're doing the wrong job.
There are enough horror stories that they get a bad rap, sure. But the bigger point is that they are doing a job that it is stupid for us to be paying for. It inconveniences every traveller in the US and it does not make us significantly safer. Secure the cockpit doors and stop worrying about bombs--if you secure the cockpit doors, all they can do is blow up the plane, and they can blow up a bus so it's a ridiculous waste of money and time to be providing absurd security.
9/11 was (1) an attack that could only work once and (2) about flying the planes. Take away the ability to fly the planes, and the plane is no longer a particularly useful terror target, it's just a target.
Don't get me wrong--I'm happy that there are people working to make terrorist attacks on the US harder. I just don't believe that the TSA is a useful way to spend those resources.
Some of us would like to see friends on other continents from time to time.
Everybody holds congress in contempt. Not many people in their right minds act contemptuously toward Article III judges. Among other things, if the TSA gets the judiciary mad at them, the TSA will begin to find the Fourth Amendment much less friendly.
Problem is, there's so much politics in the peer-review process already that the argument isn't entirely unbelievable, it's just highly unlikely. Anyone with an ear to the ground hears rumblings about science bankrolled by organizations with an agenda and presented as neutral, or about people who have been denied publication because someone on an editorial board was doing the same work and didn't want to get scooped, or about selection of big names for journals because they were big names rather than because their work was great, or about confirmation bias in clinical trials where a doc will almost subconsciously discount symptoms he doesn't like.
Obviously it's not enough to invalidate science, but the political problems make results less trustworthy and gives farfetched conspiracy theories (i.e. no global warming) a ring of truth to them. That's enough to keep them alive among the ignorant, especially because most people don't have time to learn the science themselves.
Killing people in an organization usually makes the organization weaker. So, too, does the expenditure of resources. These are the premises on which war is based. Whether it is done with swords, machine guns, bioweapons, nukes, or drones.
The choice of weapon may alter the truth of that premise by altering the willingness of people to fund, to assist, to kill for, or to die for those organizations. It will also alter the cost per kill.
As a tool, drones obviously help to kill people. The question is whether they are cost-effective and what the psychological consequences are.
you still have faith in this DOJ???
Parts of the DOJ are very highly respected. The SG's office (which I think is technically part of Justice) and the Civil Right's Division, for example. And even in the slightly less-highly-respected parts, there are some very highly respected and incredibly nice people.
There are also at least some assholes and even some incompetents, but the asshole bit is kind of a natural consequence of how the US criminal justice system works. The assholes generally mean well, but they are too quick to trample on the rights of an accused criminal. This is less of a problem on the federal level, however, than it is locally.
Have you ever heard of "collateral damage"? This Six Strikes nonsense doesn't require any courts to be involved (which means there will be no standard of evidence) and therefore will certainly affect innocents.
On the other hand, courts don't give you six strikes, either. =)
IIRC, roundabouts tend to result in having more accidents but the accidents that you have are much less serious. So they're a better choice for spreading risk.
Legal malpractice claims happen, although less often than makes sense. Kind of like how doctors stick together, but you can still find doctors who testify against serious malpractice.