At least with fingerprints, this has already been done. For $50 of equipment, you can lift a print from something like a drinking glass or other hard surface, and end up with a 'gummy finger' that isn't obvious (remember Gattica?). All it takes is gelatin (local supermarket), and some photography materials available over the internet and camera shops. Heck, there are a couple of people who worked it using a lamp, digital camera and printer, then transferred it to the gummy finger.
While not perfect, the results I've read about result in 50-75% acceptance rate, per try. That means that it might take two or three tries, but you'll usually get it.
But We The People have the profit motive, by wishing like to obtain the most value for money spent on civil engineering projects. So why do We keep the government officials in power when they so blatantly allow terrible cost overruns?
Better the devil you know... And to an extent, there's a factor of 'it's not my money'. Did you know that nearly half of the country effectivly doesn't pay taxes? And neither of the candidates for president excited me on the fiscal responsability angle.
The only way your vision is going to work is if the public ways are made private. The last time I checked, that would mean some scheme of payment. And the selfsame inept government tends to basically give the property away to insiders, by one means or another.
I agree. In both parts. I don't necessarily like the idea of privatizing the road system, I'd rather see a coop system. Not much chance of competition for roads. Of course, then it might as well be a function of government.
How would I have done the Big Dig? Hard to say as I'm not a road engineer. Any construction project that big and complicated is going to have issues(inefficiency and corruption). I'd probably try to find a team of the best road/tunnel/bridge construction engineers I could find, do a feasability and methods study. Then decide. Take any figures given to me and multiply by 2. Bid it out to multiple contractors, with penalties built in. Try to avoid a contract that states how, but what is needed. IE we need the road running here, underground, without rendering areas of the city over a certain size unaccessable, or disabling more than a certain amount of the highway at a time. Have a number of inspectors/spot checkers. Spot check myself(with training so I know what to look for), keep an eye on the books.
Try to keep contract mods to a minimum. After it's started, try to keep the politicians out of it.
Let the contractor worry about how the work gets done, make him work on credit, only pay him for delivery of completed to spec parts of the highway(ie it's delivered when cars are driving on it again). Make him warrenty his work. Sure, that's going to raise the bid price, but if he screws up, the government isn't out that much. If he fouls up too much, fire him and go with another bidder.
Profit motive. Because the government doesn't have a profit motive, they don't reign in the contractor. It's a struggle. I'm trying to get the product for the least amount of money, because I'm spending my own money/capital. They're trying to make the most profit off from it. We wrangle it out, sign a contract that both parties are satisfied with.
Let's say that I'm building a private toll road. Am I going to put up with a contractor/subcontractor not finishing on time or within budget? If they don't deliver, I'm taking them to court. That's my money I'm spending. I have a contract with them to build the road in a certain fashion, for a specified cost. They overrun, they're the ones loosing money. They take too long, again, they're the ones loosing money. The government is trying to impliment this model, but they just haven't ever done it that way, and the learning curve is steep.
Now, once I get the highway open, I'm going to recoup my investment and make a profit by charging as much as I can without driving people to go the long way.
His reasoning is this: Look at the current situation. Sure, you've spent $50 million on the project. That money is gone. You're into cost overuns. This does not matter.
What does matter is that you/they/estimaters are predicting it'll take another $50 million to finish the job. Do you spend $5 million to do a patch job and abandon the project, or do you spend the $50 million to try to complete it? Is it needed enough, that with your current financial situation, it's worth it to spend the money to finish the job?
Depending on how you measure it, North Dakota is ahead, and again, it's the 'fault' of progressive taxing. IE 60k a year here is good money. You can get a decent house for < 100K.
Of course, a huge amount of money comes from counting the military bases and indian reservation aid. The population is small too.
I think that it helps if you think of it in the old model way. A mobile phone company buys a number of lines from the land line company, then charges you for the usage of the radio. You're using the radio whether the phone is incoming or outgoing. The caller doesn't know that you're not on a land line. Remember, Americans aren't used to paying for outgoing local calls. So you either make the phone a long distance call (and have people not call you because it's not free), or make the receiver pay for a set amount of usage.
Part of the reason that America tends to be behind is that we had a number of early adopters - all the way back to trunk phones (IE you had a phone taking up a chunk of the boot for you Brits). This occured wihin a short period of developing voice over radio. The first ones were purely operator run. So we have existing infrastructure, and more surface area to cover for the population, making upgrades more expensive.
I'm not a christian either, but it's had such a huge effect on history I had to know some things about it.
After all, the first step to dealing with somebody is to know their motivations. If you know their motivations, suddenly their actions make alot more sense.
I think its just fine the way it is. I am pragmatic enough to know that outlawing certain weapons will not alleviate any problems. I was just noting that when people invoke the "founding fathers" they cannot know how the founding fathers would want the Constitution interpreted in today's context.
First part: I agree with you, and will make the argument that denying arms to the civilian population makes problems worse.
And the founders, while great men, did have many flaws that would horrify people today. For one thing, they were a bunch of sexist and racist men. But I feel the document that they drew up was a masterpiece, and most amendments have only made it better.
I wonder, do you feel that I made the claim to know what the founders would think?
I'm with the idea that the "right to keep and bear arms" covers personal weapons. As in there's a difference between a rifle and artillery, Bombs, WMD.
Hmmm... Maybe I misunderstood you. Do you think that the founders would consider the M-16A2 of today as a non-personal arm? As artillery? Or, considering that it's standard issue to troops, definately covered by the second amendment?
Probably has religious reasons. Suicide is considered a sin that get's you sent straight to hell. However, if you're sentenced to death and confess/repent before the execution, you can go to heaven. So, ironically enough, they're saving your soul by killing you before you can kill yourself.
Oh, so do you also think that the founders, not envisioning such powerful information dissemination tools as radio, television, internet, high-speed presses, telephones, cell phones, photocopiers, etc, that the first amendment doesn't apply to them?
And a few militia members owned their own artillery pieces back then. To be honest though, I think that the founders drew a line between a soldier's personal 'arms', IE what he is expected to carry into combat and use by himself, and team-crewed artillery.
If you want the 2nd to say something else, you need to follow the proper procedure for having the constitution amended.
I carry regularly. In a standard mugging I'm more likely to hand over my wallet. Beyond that the scenarios are so situational that I can't really say what I'd do. I AM NOT a trigger happy "cowboy".
And believe it or not, civilians with CCW have historically had a BETTER success rate as far as avoiding shooting innocent people goes than the police. They also have a lower conviction rate than the rest of the population, according to the statistics of Florida and Texas (two of the longer running CCW states).
"All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
From what I understand, the gun can be used anytime, but the emergency ammo is only for emergency use, to make sure that it's available in case it's needed.
"hide" their guns? I hope it's "hidden" inside of a locked case.
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
The first part of the sentence is known as an explanatory clause. It lists one reason for the right. Regulated back then meant "working", it was more of a mechanical term.
And guess what, pretty much every male over seventeen is a member of the militia, and I believe that there's a court case out there saying that that's discriminatory, they want women to be part of the militia as well.
If the first amendment ran: A well read citizenship, being necessary for the continuance of a free state, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
Ask yourself this: Would you consider it constitutional to ban books because they contain 'dangerous ideas'? Would you consider it reasonable to require books to be kept in public libraries? Would it be legal to slap a 200% tax on books?
Heh, where I went to school, "guns" were unmentioned. Of course, they also didn't institute a driver's ed program until after I had graduated... And sex ed was a one hour class, twice during my public school years. Had a precurser class in junior high, and another in high school. Neither covered much.
Gun safety training has been shown to be effective on six year olds. Of course, the most effective training has been found to require the usage of actual guns, so it might need a field trip due to some insane laws. Or at least to be taught by a police officer.
That's where you tend to run into problems. The law is set up for professional, and more importantly, in person auctioneers. This means licenses, bonds, etc...
acting as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam. I wonder how the state would like to have a mute ebay auctioneer sue them over their requirements? He can't call auctions, he can't even take an oral exam. But he could be an excellent typer for ebay auctions. Does an Ebay seller who sells $5k a year on ebay really need a $50k bond? Does he really need to call 12 auctions, when the ability to speak isn't even a requirement to simply list items? Should you even need a license to sell your own stuff, as an individual, in whatever method you choose? Should you need to go to a school that probably doesn't have any computers in the classroom, because they're teaching in-person auctioning methods, speaking techniques, and not online auctioning techniques?
While certain sellers on EBay are professional, I think that the majority are still small time. With the structure that EBay provides, the requirements to hold a good auction is lessened. Yes, it's very much a buyer beware type situation, but with the deals that you can get, you just have to be aware.
I think that Ebay can't really do more in the realm of fraud enforcement, unless it majorly changes it's sales model. After all, they don't ever see the seller, buyer, or item in question. Paypal should be able to do more, at least they see the money in many cases. But again, they don't see the item in question, so it comes down to small claims court.
And why would you need what's essentially an auction license, when you're not even auctioning items yourself online, much less hawking them with your voice? You're contracting Ebay to sell them.
I don't think that I would need a license if I hired an auctioneer to sell a bunch of my stuff. I give the auctioneer some guidlines, like how long he gives before awarding the final bid and starting prices. If anything, it would be Ebay that needs the license. After all, all an ebay seller is doing is listing the item, ebay's system actually conducts the auction.
That's what I blame the majority of those deaths on. And that number has been declining for years.
Other than that, I feel that, just like safe sex and drivers ed, gun safety should be taught in school.
Suicide? Japan manages to have a suicide rate several times ours without guns. It's been shown that absent firearms, people simply find a different method.
Murder? The majority of murder, even in the USA is done without a firearm. Frying pans, hammers, clubs, knives, etc. In areas where they've actually managed to get rid of most of the guns, the criminals have turned to running in gangs and carrying knives. Return to the rule of the strong and all that.
There are guns that pretty much only need a sheetmetal press. Full auto at that.
Heck, there are communities over in the middleast that don't have any electrical power that are making good quality AK-47's by hand.
Back in WWII M3A1's (grease gun) were made that cost $9 each back then to produce. They were so easy to produce that toy manufacturers were hired to make some of them. Now, yes, inflation and such would likely make producing them cost in the $100-200 range, but still.
Do you really want the criminals to start producing firearms like they're producing drugs? After all, once they've started their own firarms industry, it's actually somewhat easier to make a full auto submachinegun than to make a semi-auto.
As the AC pointed out, in the USA, at least outside of the large cities, attempted rape IS considered a valid reason for self defense, including lethal force.
Breaks into the house: Felony. Criminal act in progress. As it's your HOUSE, you have no duty or obligation to retreat. You have no knowledge of his intentions, whether he's armed, etc.
Messes with Girlfriend: Assault and up. You're authorized to use any level of force to stop the assault that she'd be.
Lethal force authorized: Yes. In some other areas you'd be congratulated for saving the state some money(though not officially). In 99% of cases involving a defensive shooting, the BG already has a laundry list of arrests and convictions.
Also nowhere has the death penalty for breaking and entering.
Doesn't matter. You're in fear of potential major bodily harm. You're not a police officer. You're allowed to use whatever force it takes to stop the threat. The way the human body is designed, especially with modifications from drug use/abuse, is often very hard to stop without going into lethal areas.
Slashdot Mirror
At least with fingerprints, this has already been done. For $50 of equipment, you can lift a print from something like a drinking glass or other hard surface, and end up with a 'gummy finger' that isn't obvious (remember Gattica?).
All it takes is gelatin (local supermarket), and some photography materials available over the internet and camera shops. Heck, there are a couple of people who worked it using a lamp, digital camera and printer, then transferred it to the gummy finger.
While not perfect, the results I've read about result in 50-75% acceptance rate, per try. That means that it might take two or three tries, but you'll usually get it.
Actually, it'd probably be easier to do a quick 'probe' on half a dozen people to find an easy mark than to attempt a more complex attack on one.
College Student looking for money?
High school student wanting spending cash?
2nd job(they do pay pretty good)?
He might even be 'temporarily between jobs'.
Better the devil you know... And to an extent, there's a factor of 'it's not my money'. Did you know that nearly half of the country effectivly doesn't pay taxes? And neither of the candidates for president excited me on the fiscal responsability angle.
I agree. In both parts. I don't necessarily like the idea of privatizing the road system, I'd rather see a coop system. Not much chance of competition for roads. Of course, then it might as well be a function of government.
How would I have done the Big Dig? Hard to say as I'm not a road engineer. Any construction project that big and complicated is going to have issues(inefficiency and corruption). I'd probably try to find a team of the best road/tunnel/bridge construction engineers I could find, do a feasability and methods study. Then decide. Take any figures given to me and multiply by 2. Bid it out to multiple contractors, with penalties built in. Try to avoid a contract that states how, but what is needed. IE we need the road running here, underground, without rendering areas of the city over a certain size unaccessable, or disabling more than a certain amount of the highway at a time. Have a number of inspectors/spot checkers. Spot check myself(with training so I know what to look for), keep an eye on the books.
Try to keep contract mods to a minimum. After it's started, try to keep the politicians out of it.
Let the contractor worry about how the work gets done, make him work on credit, only pay him for delivery of completed to spec parts of the highway(ie it's delivered when cars are driving on it again). Make him warrenty his work. Sure, that's going to raise the bid price, but if he screws up, the government isn't out that much. If he fouls up too much, fire him and go with another bidder.
Profit motive. Because the government doesn't have a profit motive, they don't reign in the contractor. It's a struggle. I'm trying to get the product for the least amount of money, because I'm spending my own money/capital. They're trying to make the most profit off from it. We wrangle it out, sign a contract that both parties are satisfied with.
Let's say that I'm building a private toll road. Am I going to put up with a contractor/subcontractor not finishing on time or within budget? If they don't deliver, I'm taking them to court. That's my money I'm spending. I have a contract with them to build the road in a certain fashion, for a specified cost. They overrun, they're the ones loosing money. They take too long, again, they're the ones loosing money. The government is trying to impliment this model, but they just haven't ever done it that way, and the learning curve is steep.
Now, once I get the highway open, I'm going to recoup my investment and make a profit by charging as much as I can without driving people to go the long way.
I agree with you. Mostly get rid of the roads, and go to a PRT type system. Heck, make it robust enough for cargo, and people would love it.
Or have air bridges between the buildings, and airport style slideways for increased speed.
Does Boston have a decent subway system?
But it would have an impact on his thinking.
His reasoning is this:
Look at the current situation. Sure, you've spent $50 million on the project. That money is gone. You're into cost overuns. This does not matter.
What does matter is that you/they/estimaters are predicting it'll take another $50 million to finish the job. Do you spend $5 million to do a patch job and abandon the project, or do you spend the $50 million to try to complete it? Is it needed enough, that with your current financial situation, it's worth it to spend the money to finish the job?
Depending on how you measure it, North Dakota is ahead, and again, it's the 'fault' of progressive taxing. IE 60k a year here is good money. You can get a decent house for < 100K.
Of course, a huge amount of money comes from counting the military bases and indian reservation aid. The population is small too.
I think that it helps if you think of it in the old model way. A mobile phone company buys a number of lines from the land line company, then charges you for the usage of the radio. You're using the radio whether the phone is incoming or outgoing. The caller doesn't know that you're not on a land line. Remember, Americans aren't used to paying for outgoing local calls. So you either make the phone a long distance call (and have people not call you because it's not free), or make the receiver pay for a set amount of usage.
Part of the reason that America tends to be behind is that we had a number of early adopters - all the way back to trunk phones (IE you had a phone taking up a chunk of the boot for you Brits). This occured wihin a short period of developing voice over radio. The first ones were purely operator run. So we have existing infrastructure, and more surface area to cover for the population, making upgrades more expensive.
I'm not a christian either, but it's had such a huge effect on history I had to know some things about it.
After all, the first step to dealing with somebody is to know their motivations. If you know their motivations, suddenly their actions make alot more sense.
I think its just fine the way it is. I am pragmatic enough to know that outlawing certain weapons will not alleviate any problems. I was just noting that when people invoke the "founding fathers" they cannot know how the founding fathers would want the Constitution interpreted in today's context.
First part: I agree with you, and will make the argument that denying arms to the civilian population makes problems worse.
And the founders, while great men, did have many flaws that would horrify people today. For one thing, they were a bunch of sexist and racist men. But I feel the document that they drew up was a masterpiece, and most amendments have only made it better.
I wonder, do you feel that I made the claim to know what the founders would think?
I'm with the idea that the "right to keep and bear arms" covers personal weapons. As in there's a difference between a rifle and artillery, Bombs, WMD.
Hmmm... Maybe I misunderstood you. Do you think that the founders would consider the M-16A2 of today as a non-personal arm? As artillery? Or, considering that it's standard issue to troops, definately covered by the second amendment?
Probably has religious reasons. Suicide is considered a sin that get's you sent straight to hell. However, if you're sentenced to death and confess/repent before the execution, you can go to heaven. So, ironically enough, they're saving your soul by killing you before you can kill yourself.
And here I thought it was them carrying around limes on their ships to help ward off scurvy.
Oh, so do you also think that the founders, not envisioning such powerful information dissemination tools as radio, television, internet, high-speed presses, telephones, cell phones, photocopiers, etc, that the first amendment doesn't apply to them?
And a few militia members owned their own artillery pieces back then. To be honest though, I think that the founders drew a line between a soldier's personal 'arms', IE what he is expected to carry into combat and use by himself, and team-crewed artillery.
If you want the 2nd to say something else, you need to follow the proper procedure for having the constitution amended.
I carry regularly. In a standard mugging I'm more likely to hand over my wallet. Beyond that the scenarios are so situational that I can't really say what I'd do. I AM NOT a trigger happy "cowboy".
And believe it or not, civilians with CCW have historically had a BETTER success rate as far as avoiding shooting innocent people goes than the police. They also have a lower conviction rate than the rest of the population, according to the statistics of Florida and Texas (two of the longer running CCW states).
"All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
From what I understand, the gun can be used anytime, but the emergency ammo is only for emergency use, to make sure that it's available in case it's needed.
"hide" their guns? I hope it's "hidden" inside of a locked case.
And the last words are "shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
The first part of the sentence is known as an explanatory clause. It lists one reason for the right. Regulated back then meant "working", it was more of a mechanical term.
And guess what, pretty much every male over seventeen is a member of the militia, and I believe that there's a court case out there saying that that's discriminatory, they want women to be part of the militia as well.
If the first amendment ran: A well read citizenship, being necessary for the continuance of a free state, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
Ask yourself this:
Would you consider it constitutional to ban books because they contain 'dangerous ideas'?
Would you consider it reasonable to require books to be kept in public libraries?
Would it be legal to slap a 200% tax on books?
Heh, where I went to school, "guns" were unmentioned. Of course, they also didn't institute a driver's ed program until after I had graduated... And sex ed was a one hour class, twice during my public school years. Had a precurser class in junior high, and another in high school. Neither covered much.
Gun safety training has been shown to be effective on six year olds. Of course, the most effective training has been found to require the usage of actual guns, so it might need a field trip due to some insane laws. Or at least to be taught by a police officer.
That's where you tend to run into problems. The law is set up for professional, and more importantly, in person auctioneers. This means licenses, bonds, etc...
acting as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam.
I wonder how the state would like to have a mute ebay auctioneer sue them over their requirements? He can't call auctions, he can't even take an oral exam. But he could be an excellent typer for ebay auctions. Does an Ebay seller who sells $5k a year on ebay really need a $50k bond? Does he really need to call 12 auctions, when the ability to speak isn't even a requirement to simply list items? Should you even need a license to sell your own stuff, as an individual, in whatever method you choose? Should you need to go to a school that probably doesn't have any computers in the classroom, because they're teaching in-person auctioning methods, speaking techniques, and not online auctioning techniques?
While certain sellers on EBay are professional, I think that the majority are still small time. With the structure that EBay provides, the requirements to hold a good auction is lessened. Yes, it's very much a buyer beware type situation, but with the deals that you can get, you just have to be aware.
I think that Ebay can't really do more in the realm of fraud enforcement, unless it majorly changes it's sales model. After all, they don't ever see the seller, buyer, or item in question. Paypal should be able to do more, at least they see the money in many cases. But again, they don't see the item in question, so it comes down to small claims court.
And why would you need what's essentially an auction license, when you're not even auctioning items yourself online, much less hawking them with your voice? You're contracting Ebay to sell them.
I don't think that I would need a license if I hired an auctioneer to sell a bunch of my stuff. I give the auctioneer some guidlines, like how long he gives before awarding the final bid and starting prices. If anything, it would be Ebay that needs the license. After all, all an ebay seller is doing is listing the item, ebay's system actually conducts the auction.
Remember the drug "war"?
That's what I blame the majority of those deaths on. And that number has been declining for years.
Other than that, I feel that, just like safe sex and drivers ed, gun safety should be taught in school.
Suicide? Japan manages to have a suicide rate several times ours without guns. It's been shown that absent firearms, people simply find a different method.
Murder? The majority of murder, even in the USA is done without a firearm. Frying pans, hammers, clubs, knives, etc. In areas where they've actually managed to get rid of most of the guns, the criminals have turned to running in gangs and carrying knives. Return to the rule of the strong and all that.
Don't forget domestic firearm production.
There are guns that pretty much only need a sheetmetal press. Full auto at that.
Heck, there are communities over in the middleast that don't have any electrical power that are making good quality AK-47's by hand.
Back in WWII M3A1's (grease gun) were made that cost $9 each back then to produce. They were so easy to produce that toy manufacturers were hired to make some of them. Now, yes, inflation and such would likely make producing them cost in the $100-200 range, but still.
Do you really want the criminals to start producing firearms like they're producing drugs? After all, once they've started their own firarms industry, it's actually somewhat easier to make a full auto submachinegun than to make a semi-auto.
Percentage of households with a gun:
Finland 23.2%, Switzerland 27.2%, France 22%, Norway 32%.
I don't know if you count New Zealand as being a "western" country, but it's 22.3%
As the AC pointed out, in the USA, at least outside of the large cities, attempted rape IS considered a valid reason for self defense, including lethal force.
Especially in this age of HIV.
Maybe in your state. In my state he'd get kudos.
Breaks into the house: Felony. Criminal act in progress. As it's your HOUSE, you have no duty or obligation to retreat. You have no knowledge of his intentions, whether he's armed, etc.
Messes with Girlfriend: Assault and up. You're authorized to use any level of force to stop the assault that she'd be.
Lethal force authorized: Yes. In some other areas you'd be congratulated for saving the state some money(though not officially). In 99% of cases involving a defensive shooting, the BG already has a laundry list of arrests and convictions.
Also nowhere has the death penalty for breaking and entering.
Doesn't matter. You're in fear of potential major bodily harm. You're not a police officer. You're allowed to use whatever force it takes to stop the threat. The way the human body is designed, especially with modifications from drug use/abuse, is often very hard to stop without going into lethal areas.