First, I'm assuming that "LESS crime" means less crime once you account for the fact that you're not prosecuting drug crimes. It would take a willfully ignorant misreading to screw that up.
However, how do you measure "LESS injustice" and "LESS corruption" as a result of decriminalizing drug laws? Not that I don't believe you, just that I think those would be hard to measure as effects.
Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
This comes out of the common law right to freedom of movement which includes the use of conveyances appropriate to the time. Our modern society operates on the assumption of a right to air travel.
They're closed source, built in factories that don't allow public tours. The CAD drawings for parts aren't even available to registered Ford mechanics, never mind the consumer or student. Most auto tech classes only teach installation and repair of OEM parts.
There's no way a student can learn adequately about the repair and maintenance of cars while working on Ford products. This is unacceptable.
They'll be exposed to something. Tornado, earthquake, hurricane. All of the US is threatened by at least one of those. All of those can cut the plant off from the grid and cut the backup generators from the main plant structure.
But what if you have a moral objection to killing an animal for leather but prefer bio-engineered leather to any of the synthetic replacements and are willing to pay the premium for bio-engineered? Then this is perfect for you...
Beyond just the fact that up-front costs suck, if you're poor and your kid knocks over your lamp you're out $23. If you're poor and you move then unless you plan on bringing your bulbs with you, risking shattering them in the move, you're out the $23 each.
$23 is dinner for a week if you're poor. It's only a light bulb if you're rich.
We must ban this weapons-grade steel for the good of our children. Bronze is good enough for knives for shaving, tanning hides, working the fields. We don't need steel. The steel industry tries to convince us that steel has peaceful uses but we know that steel weapons easily fall into the hands of bandits and brigands. Arsenic poisoning is simply a lie by big steel so that they can create their death tools. In reality, bronze is safe, reliable and fulfills our tool needs.
I think that's a very fair assessment of the situation, but that's not the Republicans/blocking/ the bill. That's the Republicans introducing a bill that is neither capable of nor intended to pass. There's a difference there and to claim this is Republicans blocking the bill/or/ Democrats blocking the bill is to do a disservice to the citizens because the connotations associated are then wrong.
Also, it takes away from the Diversity Lottery, which is an odd lottery among the visas since it gives visas to France instead of to Mexico or Ecuador or other countries that are economically in the crapper and if France doesn't use all its Diversity Lottery visas those visas go to waste. Personally, I think that we should drop the Diversity Lottery and move those visas to general lottery visas/and/ add STEM visas.
Yes, because aerosol anesthetic worked so well in Moscow. Anesthesia is a very delicate science when you're handling a single creature. When you've got people of all ages, sizes and healths in the mix you don't want to attempt a mass anesthesia.
Math on air marshal on every flight: 1. There are 30,000 flights per day in the US. Let's assume an air marshal can do two flights per day. That means we need 15,000 air marshals, minimum. 2. Air marshal salary is on the order of 60k per year (plus benefits).
An air marshal on every flight would cost about $900M per year in salary costs alone assuming they never get days off. With time off, working 4.75 days out of every 7 you'd need about half again as many air marshals bringing you to $1.35B per year. Add benefits and costs of another fifty percent you're looking at about $2B per year. Add support staff at 80% salary and 15% staffing and you get another $250M totaling $2.25B per year.
By comparison, the TSA has spent on the order of $100M on scanners and their staffing costs for the TSA officers that operate the checkpoints would be orders of magnitude less than an air marshal on every flight because a TSA officer can clear so many more passengers per day than the air marshals.
Of course, that's a pure cost comparison, not an effectiveness comparison. As it stands, however, air marshals don't really seem to do very much and their deterrent effect is questionable at best because of their rarity and the ease of spotting them.
Motorola is saying, "Either Apple has such a stranglehold on consumer choice that to remove them is to remove the market, proving that they must be in an anti-competitive position OR removing them from the market wouldn't hurt the market because there are enough viable alternatives so don't judge this based on whether banning iDevices would harm consumers."
I think that's a beautiful argument and I can't wait to see how the court weasels out of the proposed dilemma.
Here's the solution: 1. Add a bathroom to the cockpit, put their meals in there beforehand. 2. Remove all communication/into/ the cockpit... 2a. Except for a single EMERGENCY button that when hit informs the pilot that we are in an EMERGENCY situation. 3. EMERGENCY protocol: i. Pilots go to nearest airport, no stops, on priority ii. Upon landing a SWAT team enters the passenger cabin before talking to anyone in the passenger cabin wearing NBC. iii. If the emergency is medical (most likely) paramedics follow upon all-clear from SWAT.
How this helps: You can't coerce pilots if you can't communicate with them. The hostage takers have no chance to negotiate before police just show up. Medical emergencies are still handled.
Possible failure modes: The emergency button is going to put the plane over a major population center while landing. This is a good time to set off a bomb.
I know this is a random AC posting something meant to be humorous but I have to chime in: Plastic surgery was originally developed to repair damage by accident, injury or disease. Fixing an eagle's beak would actually be the exact purpose of plastic surgery as originally developed.
Slashdot Mirror
Hold on, one second.
First, I'm assuming that "LESS crime" means less crime once you account for the fact that you're not prosecuting drug crimes. It would take a willfully ignorant misreading to screw that up.
However, how do you measure "LESS injustice" and "LESS corruption" as a result of decriminalizing drug laws? Not that I don't believe you, just that I think those would be hard to measure as effects.
Wait, are the coins unique? Doesn't that defeat anonymity if you can track individual coins?
"I'm going to be using the back of my hand and will feel between the knee and your groin until I meet resistance."
"DO I LOOK LIKE I MIND" *Cue crazy eyes*
Flying is a privilege, not a right.
Wrong.
Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
This comes out of the common law right to freedom of movement which includes the use of conveyances appropriate to the time. Our modern society operates on the assumption of a right to air travel.
Whole-wheat? Those monsters!
Right. Then when that's done we get silverback gorillas to come take out the wolves.
They're closed source, built in factories that don't allow public tours. The CAD drawings for parts aren't even available to registered Ford mechanics, never mind the consumer or student. Most auto tech classes only teach installation and repair of OEM parts.
There's no way a student can learn adequately about the repair and maintenance of cars while working on Ford products. This is unacceptable.
Stupid Germany, always causing trouble.
How many Germans does it take to screw in an incandescent lightbulb?
Incandescent? NEIN!
I hear Greece and Italy had problems with that strategy. :P
They'll be exposed to something. Tornado, earthquake, hurricane. All of the US is threatened by at least one of those. All of those can cut the plant off from the grid and cut the backup generators from the main plant structure.
Because new designs are orders of magnitude safer and more efficient.
I have plenty of friends who love meat but only eat meat that was hunted, not farmed who would prefer grown leather.
s/for leather/for leather and meat/
Happy?
There are plenty of synthetic replacements for motorcycle leather at much the same price, mostly in the kevlar family, approximately.
But what if you have a moral objection to killing an animal for leather but prefer bio-engineered leather to any of the synthetic replacements and are willing to pay the premium for bio-engineered? Then this is perfect for you...
Ah, yes, sorry to all -- I was thinking of the CFL form-factor when I considered the shattering of bulbs.
Beyond just the fact that up-front costs suck, if you're poor and your kid knocks over your lamp you're out $23. If you're poor and you move then unless you plan on bringing your bulbs with you, risking shattering them in the move, you're out the $23 each.
$23 is dinner for a week if you're poor. It's only a light bulb if you're rich.
Brigand! You just want access to deadly, deadly steel!
We must ban this weapons-grade steel for the good of our children. Bronze is good enough for knives for shaving, tanning hides, working the fields. We don't need steel. The steel industry tries to convince us that steel has peaceful uses but we know that steel weapons easily fall into the hands of bandits and brigands. Arsenic poisoning is simply a lie by big steel so that they can create their death tools. In reality, bronze is safe, reliable and fulfills our tool needs.
I think that's a very fair assessment of the situation, but that's not the Republicans /blocking/ the bill. That's the Republicans introducing a bill that is neither capable of nor intended to pass. There's a difference there and to claim this is Republicans blocking the bill /or/ Democrats blocking the bill is to do a disservice to the citizens because the connotations associated are then wrong.
Also, it takes away from the Diversity Lottery, which is an odd lottery among the visas since it gives visas to France instead of to Mexico or Ecuador or other countries that are economically in the crapper and if France doesn't use all its Diversity Lottery visas those visas go to waste. Personally, I think that we should drop the Diversity Lottery and move those visas to general lottery visas /and/ add STEM visas.
What makes you think that the Republicans blocked this bill?
Yes, because aerosol anesthetic worked so well in Moscow. Anesthesia is a very delicate science when you're handling a single creature. When you've got people of all ages, sizes and healths in the mix you don't want to attempt a mass anesthesia.
Math on air marshal on every flight:
1. There are 30,000 flights per day in the US. Let's assume an air marshal can do two flights per day. That means we need 15,000 air marshals, minimum.
2. Air marshal salary is on the order of 60k per year (plus benefits).
An air marshal on every flight would cost about $900M per year in salary costs alone assuming they never get days off. With time off, working 4.75 days out of every 7 you'd need about half again as many air marshals bringing you to $1.35B per year. Add benefits and costs of another fifty percent you're looking at about $2B per year. Add support staff at 80% salary and 15% staffing and you get another $250M totaling $2.25B per year.
By comparison, the TSA has spent on the order of $100M on scanners and their staffing costs for the TSA officers that operate the checkpoints would be orders of magnitude less than an air marshal on every flight because a TSA officer can clear so many more passengers per day than the air marshals.
Of course, that's a pure cost comparison, not an effectiveness comparison. As it stands, however, air marshals don't really seem to do very much and their deterrent effect is questionable at best because of their rarity and the ease of spotting them.
Motorola is saying, "Either Apple has such a stranglehold on consumer choice that to remove them is to remove the market, proving that they must be in an anti-competitive position OR removing them from the market wouldn't hurt the market because there are enough viable alternatives so don't judge this based on whether banning iDevices would harm consumers."
I think that's a beautiful argument and I can't wait to see how the court weasels out of the proposed dilemma.
Re: "Open the doors or we start killing people."
Here's the solution: /into/ the cockpit...
1. Add a bathroom to the cockpit, put their meals in there beforehand.
2. Remove all communication
2a. Except for a single EMERGENCY button that when hit informs the pilot that we are in an EMERGENCY situation.
3. EMERGENCY protocol:
i. Pilots go to nearest airport, no stops, on priority
ii. Upon landing a SWAT team enters the passenger cabin before talking to anyone in the passenger cabin wearing NBC.
iii. If the emergency is medical (most likely) paramedics follow upon all-clear from SWAT.
How this helps: You can't coerce pilots if you can't communicate with them. The hostage takers have no chance to negotiate before police just show up. Medical emergencies are still handled.
Possible failure modes: The emergency button is going to put the plane over a major population center while landing. This is a good time to set off a bomb.
I know this is a random AC posting something meant to be humorous but I have to chime in: Plastic surgery was originally developed to repair damage by accident, injury or disease. Fixing an eagle's beak would actually be the exact purpose of plastic surgery as originally developed.