Unless you are already quite rich, you should NEVER take that bet
Yeah, but GP's point was that human's math sense is broken at those high levels. Those who can handle the differences and have certain other traits are the ones who get to be rich.
Those who's math sense is broken worse than average are the types buying lottery tickets as a retirement strategy.
Yes, the marginal utility of the next $ when NetValue=$1M is much less than when NV=$1. But humans typically don't think that way.
You're doing pretty good if you can conceptualize that a million bucks is just a million bucks.
I can't find the article at the moment, most of the articles go with this, but it made a point:
You get bacteria resistant to antibiotics NOT used on cattle all the time, and antibiotics used in cattle farming are still mostly effective.
The research article mentioned that low dose antibiotics, given to animals in the most efficient regimes, tended to not result in resistant bacteria. The idea wast that there's generally an expense to developing immunity, and it's 'not worth' paying that expense at low doses. Meanwhile the antibiotics prevent an illness by making it just a little harder for the bacteria to start an infection, giving the immune system of the animal just a little more time to snuff it.
Meanwhile, theraputic doses are far higher, necessitating immunity if the bacteria is to survive. Paying the metabolic cost for immunity is worth it.
In the article it mentioned that the EU, which only uses antibiotics theraputically for treating sick cattle, ends up using as many antibiotics and has as many problems with antibiotic resistance as the states.
Typically while first responders get vaccinated for all sorts of things that the normal person doesn't, it's because they're viewed as being more likely to be exposed. They aren't getting vaccines denied to the public, in most cases you ask your doc for the additional vaccines you'll get them.
First responders also get them so they can be the first to set up mass vaccination points if an epidemic breaks out, without losing too many to the illness(trained medical people being a critical resources in an outbreak). Non-emergency medical professionals often get the shots as well, so more of them would be available to provide care. Meanwhile, there's not enough chance of an outbreak for it to be worth the expense/risk of vaccinating the general public.
Their risk profile is different than the generic citizen, much like how a vetrinarian will typically have the rabies vaccination ahead of time, due to their greater likelihood of exposure from their work.
Personally, I see vaccination in terms of game theory - you take the risk of dying from the vaccine because it's less than the overall risk of dying from the disease. If you KNOW you're going to die from it, it becomes a much harder decision. If
Besides, when it comes to smallpox, it 'only' had a 30% death rate. So it's not saving 999 lives, it's 'only' saving ~300, and only if exposed. Probably closer to 100 outside of a really bad outbreak.
Variolation had around a 1% chance of death. Out of a 1000 variolated, 10 will die from it. If NOT variolated, 100 will die, many will be scarred, most will end up disabled for a month or so sick/recovering. Still a 10X improvement in survival, thus it spread quickly. Then 1stGen Vaccinations dropped that by another OOM,.1% chance of death. 2nd/3rd gen vaccines essentially eliminated the chance of death, to the point that 4thGen Vaccinations aren't even for routinely fatal stuff anymore.
The grim spector of disease was so bad back then that even if it killed the occasional person, anything that granted immunity had great value.
But with further cuts to 'wasteful' government, we can return to the good ol' days.
Personally, I'd consider this a valid target for 'pork' spending. Expensive with no real prospect of providing serious benefit. The government doesn't even need to just NOT spend this money, spending it somewhere more effective is a valid alternative. There's plenty of options.
What about using this money to fund a poison control center(previously subject to attempted cuts)? They not only prevent unnecessary emergency room visits, they save lives. What about orphan drugs? Rural medical programs? Giving the EPA a bit more oomph to control toxin releases? The FDA to both properly test and quickly release potentially life saving drugs? Inspect our food sources a bit more thouroughly a bit more often?
There's a limited amount of money available, there's plenty of optimization available out there, and this is iffy enough to be a target.
It's not a vaccine for first responders though. By some readings, it's not even a true vaccine, not being intended to provide immunity before catching the disease.
I'm also fine with giving first responders vaccines for stuff that they're fairly unlikely to encounter. Still, I think we need to consider the likelihood that smallpox will either somehow be released (perhaps by an unknown store), or redevelop in the wild. The first is fairly unlikely at this point, and the second would most likely simply be a similar virus – but one that isn’t affected by current vaccines. Don't forget that when it comes to terrorists, hearing that we have enough vaccine stockpiled for every american can be a reason to NOT bother with using it as a weapon. So just possessing the vaccine can be a deterant. Same idea with US units all being equipped for chemical warfare - our enemies are not as likely to try it in the first place.
As such, one needs to consider the monetary effectiveness of this move. Why? We still have limited dollars. $443M might be better spent(IE saving more lives) towards finally eliminating polio, treating obesity, as AIDS research, etc I think it's a legitimate question.
Your mentioning of the death rate for the ring vaccination reminded me of variolation, the earliest known deliberate vaccination method for smallpox.
Variolation had a death rate of 1-2%. But 'wild caught' smallpox had a death rate of around 30%, so even royalty variolated their kids as the safest alternative.
We're absolutely spoiled in modern society when it comes to disease. It used to be the #1 killer. Disease used to kill more soldiers in campaigns than the fighting did.
No, you only see something like my friend's truck, which spontaneously caught fire driving down the road and burned up the entire cab.
Yes, but it wasn't an unattended vehicle left sitting somewhere for 3 weeks. It was a currently active vehicle of indeterminate maintenance, with a hot engine, fuel line under pressure, etc...
Generally, a vehicle that is driven will have the odd things happen to it while it's moving - when there are extra forces acting on the vehicle. That's when a rock will hit a rust spot and open up that hole in the fuel tank. When the fuel line will break. When the engine mount breaks and drops the engine onto the road(happened to mom), axle breaks(saw it happen), etc...
Normally the worst thing that happens to a car that's reached room temperature for an extended period is that the battery might go bad or become drained. Annoying, but not normally dangerous.
Heck, let's say the fuel line had broken while the truck was parked and the engine had been off for a while. Let's say a rodent chewed through the fuel line at the breaking point. Odds are, with a cold turned off engine, you would get a strong gas odor, and know something was up. Or the engine wouldn't start(no fuel), with the fuel pump maybe squirting some gas from the break. But with a cold engine, less chance of a fire. If the whole cab burned up, it had to have been a LOT of gas on the engine before it ignited.
BTW, I hope you and your friend were uninjured.
Obviously it will have to be an accident of sufficient force to impale the battery. Have you ever tried to impale a battery? It's not the simplest thing in the world to do.
Hmm... Maybe that's part of why they're investigating - perhaps a change to the battery container is warranted. Maybe something to do with the battery. I could also see an advisory to repair/junk shops to check the battery after an accident.
You make some good points, but until relatively recently the depreciation of EV batteries, calculated on a per mile/annual basis exceeded the cost of the electricity used to charge it. IE You spend 5 cents worth of electricity to go a mile, but the battery 'wore down' 10 cents. Meanwhile I wouldn't be surprised if a standard 10 gallon tank used in many small cars cost around $20 for auto manufacturers. Then add $40 of gasoline, total value $60. EV batteries are in the thousands, to the point that the electricity used to charge them is a marginal thing.
I wouldn't wan an EV pack in my bedroom either - they're huge. While I might be able to pick up a full 10 gallon tank, assuming it has good handholds, there's no way I'm going to be able to pick up even the smaller leaf batteries.
As for cost, well, they're about the same at the moment - extra expense up front, cheaper per mile. Or less expense, more expensive per mile.
I have a felon for a cousin, heck, given the percentage of people who are felons, I'm willing to bet that 'most' people have a felon in their family if you're willing to go that far out. Cousin, grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, etc... It can add up to a lot of people.
On the other hand, as you say, he's engaged in activities that might have the police thinking he's involved. If you were to investigate me in relation to my felonious cousin, you'd find that I live about as far away as possible while still being in country, don't have his phone number, don't have any shared aquiantaces, etc...
I don't care whether your heart bleeds or not. I doubt you noticed, but I'm not exactly a bleeding heart type myelf. Well, not unless I freshly tore it out for my dinner.;)
I've phrased everything for two points: 1: Managed properly, access to game systems, along with TV, books, magazines, whatever, can be used to fashing a reward system to give prisoners incentive to behave. Said incentives for good behavior can help on reforms. 2: Again, managed properly said systems can make for a more 'content'(not necessarily happy) prison population, that's less likely to revolt, takes less manpower to manage, and therefore costs less. Given that I have to pay taxes, I'm willing to let prisoners have (basic)TV if each dollar spent on it saves $12, and doesn't impose other significant issues. You seem to be arguing 'I don't care if it costs me another $100 in taxes each year, no niceties for prisoners!!!'
As for the educational rant - I've said it elsewhere: Prisoners aren't some RTS peon that can only do one thing. It's quite possible for them to spend 8 hours working, 4 hours in class or studying, 1 hour working out, 2 hours eating/washing/cleaning, and have 1 hour left for watching TV or playing games. Sure, make the most of the library and class system. But holding classes in a prison is fairly expensive, and even a library costs a suprising amount of money.
As for drugging them, the levels I've seen for TV amounts to $12 a convict a year. It would be hard to have a program that drugs them for cheaper than that. Drug them to the point they aren't a danger and you're not only spending a lot on drugs, you're going to have to hire more medical staff to handle the problems THAT causes. Not to mention the possiblity of releasing addicts back on the streets because you drugged them, you didn't reform them.
You seem to keep treating cable TV/game consoles as a 'sole solution'. I see it as part of a system.
In the civilian world, the equivalent to an X-Box might be a trip to the Bahamas. You have to be a very good prisoner to earn even limited access to one.
It will condition them that being a sloth is acceptable. They will continue the sloth behavior after release, only turning to crime when they need/want money or goods.
The US system has one of the worst success rates at reform in the world. All evidence is that the harsher you treat prisoners, the less likely they are to reform. As such, while I support prison's capability to be harsh if a prisoner doesn't behave well, I also support it being a safe and fairly humane place for those that do.
Prison shouldn't be able retribution or revenge. It should be about reform. Do what works, we can cut sentence lengths considerably while still reducing recidivism. When keeping a prisoner runs around $24k a year(in 2005, it's $47k in CA for 2009), and the median income of US households is only $44k, the savings can be substantial.
So, doing something bad gets your incentive taken away. Say for instance, you kill someone. Then you go to prison. Then you get an XBox. Yeah, I see it now.
First, not everyone goes to prison for murder. Are you proposing denying the guy sentenced to prison for 7 years for drug dealing, DUI, theft, etc... if he's being good? How about as a reward to a gang-banger for stopping said association?
Okay, let's say that you DID kill someone. Then you go to prison, where you're not free to do what you want, see your family when you want, go to the park when you want, etc... After approximately a year, if you've been good, you might have an opportunity to buy an X-Box for $499(yes, you pay more than MSRP for the crippled 'prison special' version), while having worked for $.70/hour. So 714 hours of work, 'only' 18 weeks, not including any other expenses - toiletries, non-chow hall food, books, paper, whatever. Assuming you're good enough to be trusted with the job in the first place, of course. Oh yeah, and you're probably going to have to buy the $799 19" TV first(clear shatterproof acrylic paneling and such).
The point to prison should be reform, more than just punishment. Often part of that is presenting them with a clear punishment/reward system. Be good, gradually earn more privilages. Be bad and your life will quickly suck worse than when you first came in.
As somebody else mentioned - cable TV helps reduce the need for prison guards(you're essentially drugging them, but eh...). By my calcs, even the expensive cable bills start at a 6:1 return(saves $6 for every $1 spent) if it eliminates the need for 2 guards. Depending, it's likely that it reduces more than 2 guards, and I was going by salary, not cost - so 12 to 1 isn't unlikely.
Quite. One common figure google throws up is $280k a year for 17 prisons and 5 'community corrections centers'(jails?) in Oklahoma. Research shows there's around 25k prisoners(do we let the guards have cable?). $11.20 per prisoner, per year, paid, per the articles, by the prisoners through the use of the canteen.
That's ~$13k a facility. Minumum wage: $7.25. Cost for a minimum worker, 40 hours a week: $16k before benefits. More likely cost for a prison guard? $43k. If it removes the need for a 'couple guards', that's a 6:1 return, even if you spend a grand on a new TV each year.
BTW, the hate in reader comments was extreme. Assuming that the TVs get *any* educational programing, they probably get more education from it than what other forms would cost - $11.20 would pay for, maybe, 2 books per prisoner, or maybe half an hour of instruction.
theres no reason someone older than 5 shouldnt know how to read but i digress
Blind, developmentally disabled (disproportionally represented in prisons, unfortunately), dyslexia, just plain stupid, etc... This is in addition to 'incredibly poorly served by the education system'.
Sometimes I approach problems from an idealistic standpoint, sometimes from a more 'practical' one. In this case, the practical problem is that prisoners are disproportionally poorly educated. This DOES present an opportunity in that by educating them properly, we can often fix the problems that got them into prison in the first place, keeping them from returning. But I'm not so ivory tower minded as to believe that we can make every entertainment education instead. Especially for a functionally illiterate prisoner - it's going to take proper classes to teach them to read*.
*Self learners are going to be very rare at this point.
Criminals aren't some resource gatherer in a RTS, they aren't stuck doing only one thing during their sentence. Not even professional students spend all of their time learning. Thus my 'rewind' comment(though I should of said 'unwind').
I'm not suggesting letting them play on one for 12 hours a day. But even 1 hour a day can be a useful incentive...
If you've been sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder, for instance, I don't think you deserve luxury.
Again, understandable. Still, unless it's 'without parole', odds are that he's going to have to reintigrate with society sometime(maybe when he's 60 or so).
Meanwhile, #2 still applies - a game station is actually a very cheap distraction if it prevents a single serious incident. Figure $10k if somebody's stabbed, $100k+ for a prison riot, etc...
I'm not saying that you coddle them - just that you enable them to earn privilages through good behavior.
It's been mentioned elsewhere, but one cannot generally read only educational material for entertainment. Heck, many prisoners are functionally illiterate. Thus, reading, even learning to read, is work for them.
The games are to rewind, something other than lifting weights, playing basketball, or such.
Plus, it's an incentive - act like a civilized human being, get some of the benefits of being one. Don't act like a civilized being, and your game station is taken away(along with everything else in your cell), or you don't get one in the first place.
Okay, so you don't think prisoners should be 'given' video games.
I can understand the logic, however, on second thought I can see reasonings TO do so: 1. It's something to do other than scheme escape, shanking a fellow prisoner or guard, etc... 2. Privilage is one of the ways you can control prisoners - by giving them access to luxuries for good behavior, you encourage it. The old 'nothing to lose' maxim applies 3. Integration back into society. You make prison too harsh, too alien, and they're actually less likely to reform.
In many prison systems, the prisoner would have to buy the $499 system with their own money - earned at $.50/hour.
The last time this issue came up on Slashdot, the (L)ibertarians came out of the woodwork, blaming my parents for building a house somewhere where there's no broadband, despite the fact that they built the house in 1985. Which is about as rational as blaming settlers in the 1700's for not building cities where the interstates were going to be.
Yeah, I feel your pain. I consider myself a moderate libertarian, and my response to this would be dismantling their effective monopolies and encouraging local coops.
I'm also a believer in Kenesian economics - so I'd be putting all those people who are out of work to work building infrastructure. It'd catch up sooner or later.
Save your money for the thing your kid actually needs.
I'll echo this. You are far more likely to work yourself up to a heart attack by not being able to properly interpret the data from any monitoring device you get than you are to actually save yourself from any radiation hazard through the use of the device.
Hang around slashdot long enough and you'll know that radiation is pretty much everywhere, just not at dangerous levels. The type of radiation is often crucial - and unless your pockets are extremely deep, the equipment you can afford can't tell you which type you're encountering.
I'd just pay attention to the news - the authorities are running around with the proper equipment and training. They aren't perfect, but it's better than scaring yourself over your granite countertop.
I'm not sure that the first four companies listed would be willing to help build a competitor's car in one of their facilities without a more extensive partnership, that they're set up for such limited production runs, etc...
As for local motors - are they set up to build whole cars by the thousand? Do they have the excess capability available? Do they have the tools/equipment to transition to constructing electric hybrids without extensive reworking?
One thing about 'leveraged' buyouts - These guys would borrow the money to buy the company, using the company's assets as security for the loan. Just like buying a house or car - the company being bought became the collateral. Thus the usage of the term 'leveraged'.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you are already quite rich, you should NEVER take that bet
Yeah, but GP's point was that human's math sense is broken at those high levels. Those who can handle the differences and have certain other traits are the ones who get to be rich.
Those who's math sense is broken worse than average are the types buying lottery tickets as a retirement strategy.
Yes, the marginal utility of the next $ when NetValue=$1M is much less than when NV=$1. But humans typically don't think that way.
You're doing pretty good if you can conceptualize that a million bucks is just a million bucks.
She probably didn't have time to think of approaching a school for work; a temp agency can have workers there in an hour.
The real WTF of this is her not putting a limit on the number of orders possible. That is possible, right?
I can't find the article at the moment, most of the articles go with this, but it made a point:
You get bacteria resistant to antibiotics NOT used on cattle all the time, and antibiotics used in cattle farming are still mostly effective.
The research article mentioned that low dose antibiotics, given to animals in the most efficient regimes, tended to not result in resistant bacteria.
The idea wast that there's generally an expense to developing immunity, and it's 'not worth' paying that expense at low doses. Meanwhile the antibiotics prevent an illness by making it just a little harder for the bacteria to start an infection, giving the immune system of the animal just a little more time to snuff it.
Meanwhile, theraputic doses are far higher, necessitating immunity if the bacteria is to survive. Paying the metabolic cost for immunity is worth it.
In the article it mentioned that the EU, which only uses antibiotics theraputically for treating sick cattle, ends up using as many antibiotics and has as many problems with antibiotic resistance as the states.
I wonder if they weren't so much 'landscapers' as 'fancy lawnmowers' and failed to adapt?
Typically while first responders get vaccinated for all sorts of things that the normal person doesn't, it's because they're viewed as being more likely to be exposed. They aren't getting vaccines denied to the public, in most cases you ask your doc for the additional vaccines you'll get them.
First responders also get them so they can be the first to set up mass vaccination points if an epidemic breaks out, without losing too many to the illness(trained medical people being a critical resources in an outbreak). Non-emergency medical professionals often get the shots as well, so more of them would be available to provide care. Meanwhile, there's not enough chance of an outbreak for it to be worth the expense/risk of vaccinating the general public.
Their risk profile is different than the generic citizen, much like how a vetrinarian will typically have the rabies vaccination ahead of time, due to their greater likelihood of exposure from their work.
Personally, I see vaccination in terms of game theory - you take the risk of dying from the vaccine because it's less than the overall risk of dying from the disease. If you KNOW you're going to die from it, it becomes a much harder decision. If
Besides, when it comes to smallpox, it 'only' had a 30% death rate. So it's not saving 999 lives, it's 'only' saving ~300, and only if exposed. Probably closer to 100 outside of a really bad outbreak.
Variolation had around a 1% chance of death. Out of a 1000 variolated, 10 will die from it. If NOT variolated, 100 will die, many will be scarred, most will end up disabled for a month or so sick/recovering. Still a 10X improvement in survival, thus it spread quickly. Then 1stGen Vaccinations dropped that by another OOM, .1% chance of death. 2nd/3rd gen vaccines essentially eliminated the chance of death, to the point that 4thGen Vaccinations aren't even for routinely fatal stuff anymore.
The grim spector of disease was so bad back then that even if it killed the occasional person, anything that granted immunity had great value.
But with further cuts to 'wasteful' government, we can return to the good ol' days.
Personally, I'd consider this a valid target for 'pork' spending. Expensive with no real prospect of providing serious benefit. The government doesn't even need to just NOT spend this money, spending it somewhere more effective is a valid alternative. There's plenty of options.
What about using this money to fund a poison control center(previously subject to attempted cuts)? They not only prevent unnecessary emergency room visits, they save lives. What about orphan drugs? Rural medical programs? Giving the EPA a bit more oomph to control toxin releases? The FDA to both properly test and quickly release potentially life saving drugs? Inspect our food sources a bit more thouroughly a bit more often?
There's a limited amount of money available, there's plenty of optimization available out there, and this is iffy enough to be a target.
It's not a vaccine for first responders though. By some readings, it's not even a true vaccine, not being intended to provide immunity before catching the disease.
I'm also fine with giving first responders vaccines for stuff that they're fairly unlikely to encounter. Still, I think we need to consider the likelihood that smallpox will either somehow be released (perhaps by an unknown store), or redevelop in the wild. The first is fairly unlikely at this point, and the second would most likely simply be a similar virus – but one that isn’t affected by current vaccines. Don't forget that when it comes to terrorists, hearing that we have enough vaccine stockpiled for every american can be a reason to NOT bother with using it as a weapon. So just possessing the vaccine can be a deterant. Same idea with US units all being equipped for chemical warfare - our enemies are not as likely to try it in the first place.
As such, one needs to consider the monetary effectiveness of this move. Why? We still have limited dollars. $443M might be better spent(IE saving more lives) towards finally eliminating polio, treating obesity, as AIDS research, etc I think it's a legitimate question.
Your mentioning of the death rate for the ring vaccination reminded me of variolation, the earliest known deliberate vaccination method for smallpox.
Variolation had a death rate of 1-2%. But 'wild caught' smallpox had a death rate of around 30%, so even royalty variolated their kids as the safest alternative.
We're absolutely spoiled in modern society when it comes to disease. It used to be the #1 killer. Disease used to kill more soldiers in campaigns than the fighting did.
No, you only see something like my friend's truck, which spontaneously caught fire driving down the road and burned up the entire cab.
Yes, but it wasn't an unattended vehicle left sitting somewhere for 3 weeks. It was a currently active vehicle of indeterminate maintenance, with a hot engine, fuel line under pressure, etc...
Generally, a vehicle that is driven will have the odd things happen to it while it's moving - when there are extra forces acting on the vehicle. That's when a rock will hit a rust spot and open up that hole in the fuel tank. When the fuel line will break. When the engine mount breaks and drops the engine onto the road(happened to mom), axle breaks(saw it happen), etc...
Normally the worst thing that happens to a car that's reached room temperature for an extended period is that the battery might go bad or become drained. Annoying, but not normally dangerous.
Heck, let's say the fuel line had broken while the truck was parked and the engine had been off for a while. Let's say a rodent chewed through the fuel line at the breaking point. Odds are, with a cold turned off engine, you would get a strong gas odor, and know something was up. Or the engine wouldn't start(no fuel), with the fuel pump maybe squirting some gas from the break. But with a cold engine, less chance of a fire. If the whole cab burned up, it had to have been a LOT of gas on the engine before it ignited.
BTW, I hope you and your friend were uninjured.
Obviously it will have to be an accident of sufficient force to impale the battery. Have you ever tried to impale a battery? It's not the simplest thing in the world to do.
Hmm... Maybe that's part of why they're investigating - perhaps a change to the battery container is warranted. Maybe something to do with the battery. I could also see an advisory to repair/junk shops to check the battery after an accident.
You make some good points, but until relatively recently the depreciation of EV batteries, calculated on a per mile/annual basis exceeded the cost of the electricity used to charge it. IE You spend 5 cents worth of electricity to go a mile, but the battery 'wore down' 10 cents. Meanwhile I wouldn't be surprised if a standard 10 gallon tank used in many small cars cost around $20 for auto manufacturers. Then add $40 of gasoline, total value $60. EV batteries are in the thousands, to the point that the electricity used to charge them is a marginal thing.
I wouldn't wan an EV pack in my bedroom either - they're huge. While I might be able to pick up a full 10 gallon tank, assuming it has good handholds, there's no way I'm going to be able to pick up even the smaller leaf batteries.
As for cost, well, they're about the same at the moment - extra expense up front, cheaper per mile. Or less expense, more expensive per mile.
I have a felon for a cousin, heck, given the percentage of people who are felons, I'm willing to bet that 'most' people have a felon in their family if you're willing to go that far out. Cousin, grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, etc... It can add up to a lot of people.
On the other hand, as you say, he's engaged in activities that might have the police thinking he's involved. If you were to investigate me in relation to my felonious cousin, you'd find that I live about as far away as possible while still being in country, don't have his phone number, don't have any shared aquiantaces, etc...
I don't care whether your heart bleeds or not. I doubt you noticed, but I'm not exactly a bleeding heart type myelf. Well, not unless I freshly tore it out for my dinner. ;)
I've phrased everything for two points:
1: Managed properly, access to game systems, along with TV, books, magazines, whatever, can be used to fashing a reward system to give prisoners incentive to behave. Said incentives for good behavior can help on reforms.
2: Again, managed properly said systems can make for a more 'content'(not necessarily happy) prison population, that's less likely to revolt, takes less manpower to manage, and therefore costs less. Given that I have to pay taxes, I'm willing to let prisoners have (basic)TV if each dollar spent on it saves $12, and doesn't impose other significant issues. You seem to be arguing 'I don't care if it costs me another $100 in taxes each year, no niceties for prisoners!!!'
As for the educational rant - I've said it elsewhere: Prisoners aren't some RTS peon that can only do one thing. It's quite possible for them to spend 8 hours working, 4 hours in class or studying, 1 hour working out, 2 hours eating/washing/cleaning, and have 1 hour left for watching TV or playing games. Sure, make the most of the library and class system. But holding classes in a prison is fairly expensive, and even a library costs a suprising amount of money.
As for drugging them, the levels I've seen for TV amounts to $12 a convict a year. It would be hard to have a program that drugs them for cheaper than that. Drug them to the point they aren't a danger and you're not only spending a lot on drugs, you're going to have to hire more medical staff to handle the problems THAT causes. Not to mention the possiblity of releasing addicts back on the streets because you drugged them, you didn't reform them.
You seem to keep treating cable TV/game consoles as a 'sole solution'. I see it as part of a system.
In the civilian world, the equivalent to an X-Box might be a trip to the Bahamas. You have to be a very good prisoner to earn even limited access to one.
It will condition them that being a sloth is acceptable. They will continue the sloth behavior after release, only turning to crime when they need/want money or goods.
The US system has one of the worst success rates at reform in the world. All evidence is that the harsher you treat prisoners, the less likely they are to reform. As such, while I support prison's capability to be harsh if a prisoner doesn't behave well, I also support it being a safe and fairly humane place for those that do.
Prison shouldn't be able retribution or revenge. It should be about reform. Do what works, we can cut sentence lengths considerably while still reducing recidivism. When keeping a prisoner runs around $24k a year(in 2005, it's $47k in CA for 2009), and the median income of US households is only $44k, the savings can be substantial.
So, doing something bad gets your incentive taken away. Say for instance, you kill someone. Then you go to prison. Then you get an XBox. Yeah, I see it now.
First, not everyone goes to prison for murder. Are you proposing denying the guy sentenced to prison for 7 years for drug dealing, DUI, theft, etc... if he's being good? How about as a reward to a gang-banger for stopping said association?
Okay, let's say that you DID kill someone. Then you go to prison, where you're not free to do what you want, see your family when you want, go to the park when you want, etc... After approximately a year, if you've been good, you might have an opportunity to buy an X-Box for $499(yes, you pay more than MSRP for the crippled 'prison special' version), while having worked for $.70/hour. So 714 hours of work, 'only' 18 weeks, not including any other expenses - toiletries, non-chow hall food, books, paper, whatever. Assuming you're good enough to be trusted with the job in the first place, of course. Oh yeah, and you're probably going to have to buy the $799 19" TV first(clear shatterproof acrylic paneling and such).
The point to prison should be reform, more than just punishment. Often part of that is presenting them with a clear punishment/reward system. Be good, gradually earn more privilages. Be bad and your life will quickly suck worse than when you first came in.
As somebody else mentioned - cable TV helps reduce the need for prison guards(you're essentially drugging them, but eh...). By my calcs, even the expensive cable bills start at a 6:1 return(saves $6 for every $1 spent) if it eliminates the need for 2 guards. Depending, it's likely that it reduces more than 2 guards, and I was going by salary, not cost - so 12 to 1 isn't unlikely.
Quite. One common figure google throws up is $280k a year for 17 prisons and 5 'community corrections centers'(jails?) in Oklahoma. Research shows there's around 25k prisoners(do we let the guards have cable?). $11.20 per prisoner, per year, paid, per the articles, by the prisoners through the use of the canteen.
That's ~$13k a facility. Minumum wage: $7.25. Cost for a minimum worker, 40 hours a week: $16k before benefits. More likely cost for a prison guard? $43k. If it removes the need for a 'couple guards', that's a 6:1 return, even if you spend a grand on a new TV each year.
BTW, the hate in reader comments was extreme. Assuming that the TVs get *any* educational programing, they probably get more education from it than what other forms would cost - $11.20 would pay for, maybe, 2 books per prisoner, or maybe half an hour of instruction.
theres no reason someone older than 5 shouldnt know how to read but i digress
Blind, developmentally disabled (disproportionally represented in prisons, unfortunately), dyslexia, just plain stupid, etc... This is in addition to 'incredibly poorly served by the education system'.
Sometimes I approach problems from an idealistic standpoint, sometimes from a more 'practical' one. In this case, the practical problem is that prisoners are disproportionally poorly educated. This DOES present an opportunity in that by educating them properly, we can often fix the problems that got them into prison in the first place, keeping them from returning. But I'm not so ivory tower minded as to believe that we can make every entertainment education instead. Especially for a functionally illiterate prisoner - it's going to take proper classes to teach them to read*.
*Self learners are going to be very rare at this point.
Criminals aren't some resource gatherer in a RTS, they aren't stuck doing only one thing during their sentence. Not even professional students spend all of their time learning. Thus my 'rewind' comment(though I should of said 'unwind').
I'm not suggesting letting them play on one for 12 hours a day. But even 1 hour a day can be a useful incentive...
If you've been sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder, for instance, I don't think you deserve luxury.
Again, understandable. Still, unless it's 'without parole', odds are that he's going to have to reintigrate with society sometime(maybe when he's 60 or so).
Meanwhile, #2 still applies - a game station is actually a very cheap distraction if it prevents a single serious incident. Figure $10k if somebody's stabbed, $100k+ for a prison riot, etc...
I'm not saying that you coddle them - just that you enable them to earn privilages through good behavior.
It's been mentioned elsewhere, but one cannot generally read only educational material for entertainment. Heck, many prisoners are functionally illiterate. Thus, reading, even learning to read, is work for them.
The games are to rewind, something other than lifting weights, playing basketball, or such.
Plus, it's an incentive - act like a civilized human being, get some of the benefits of being one. Don't act like a civilized being, and your game station is taken away(along with everything else in your cell), or you don't get one in the first place.
Okay, so you don't think prisoners should be 'given' video games.
I can understand the logic, however, on second thought I can see reasonings TO do so:
1. It's something to do other than scheme escape, shanking a fellow prisoner or guard, etc...
2. Privilage is one of the ways you can control prisoners - by giving them access to luxuries for good behavior, you encourage it. The old 'nothing to lose' maxim applies
3. Integration back into society. You make prison too harsh, too alien, and they're actually less likely to reform.
In many prison systems, the prisoner would have to buy the $499 system with their own money - earned at $.50/hour.
The last time this issue came up on Slashdot, the (L)ibertarians came out of the woodwork, blaming my parents for building a house somewhere where there's no broadband, despite the fact that they built the house in 1985. Which is about as rational as blaming settlers in the 1700's for not building cities where the interstates were going to be.
Yeah, I feel your pain. I consider myself a moderate libertarian, and my response to this would be dismantling their effective monopolies and encouraging local coops.
I'm also a believer in Kenesian economics - so I'd be putting all those people who are out of work to work building infrastructure. It'd catch up sooner or later.
Save your money for the thing your kid actually needs.
I'll echo this. You are far more likely to work yourself up to a heart attack by not being able to properly interpret the data from any monitoring device you get than you are to actually save yourself from any radiation hazard through the use of the device.
Hang around slashdot long enough and you'll know that radiation is pretty much everywhere, just not at dangerous levels. The type of radiation is often crucial - and unless your pockets are extremely deep, the equipment you can afford can't tell you which type you're encountering.
I'd just pay attention to the news - the authorities are running around with the proper equipment and training. They aren't perfect, but it's better than scaring yourself over your granite countertop.
I'm not sure that the first four companies listed would be willing to help build a competitor's car in one of their facilities without a more extensive partnership, that they're set up for such limited production runs, etc...
As for local motors - are they set up to build whole cars by the thousand? Do they have the excess capability available? Do they have the tools/equipment to transition to constructing electric hybrids without extensive reworking?
Need to make a few hundred of something? Europe may be your answer.
Need to make a few hundred thousand? USA.
few hundred million? China.
One thing about 'leveraged' buyouts - These guys would borrow the money to buy the company, using the company's assets as security for the loan. Just like buying a house or car - the company being bought became the collateral. Thus the usage of the term 'leveraged'.