At the very baseline, the comparison is invalid because their physical natures put them into different economic categories. The cell phone and laptop are private goods (rival, exclusive), while a music recording is a public good (non-rival, non-exclusive) transformed by legal means into a club good (non-rival, exclusive).
Getting a speeding ticket doesn't land you in jail. I'd like to think I'm an open-minded person. Why not try an analogy or example that is a little more realistic?
Because your expectations of the prison system are already problematic. That's why I used something deliberately absurd hoping you would get the point instead of bickering about the fine details and then genuinely suggesting a barbaric practice..
Let's see how many people protest that statement.
I certainly would, as would basically any person moderately versed in modern psychology.
"Woosh. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever how different the UK terrorism risk is to that of the US. You've never visited the UK, never studied the risks, have no idea what the populations at risk are or how many UK/French/American citizens are fighting for ISIS at present but you'll just pull theoretical fuzzy risk evaluations out ouf your ass.
The subject is UK Justice & terrorism risks. You have no knowledge of the subject & nothing intelligent to say so just shut up."
Except I noted that the rate of death by terrorism is about the same as bees, which is for the record, ~5 deaths per year. That said, it's pretty easy math. Terrorism is a technique employed by an inferior military force.
None of your mundane threats are shutting down public transport, causing massive disruptions in public life or getting politicians scared enough for their reelection that they completely reorient government policy. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about & nothing intelligent to say.
Airports are closed by snow, and I easily found a BBC reference to a single storm that killed 4 people. You do have a unique position on the reaction of politicians. That's the goal of terrorism, so if you react out of fear, then the terrorists have accomplished their goal.
Before denigrating public fear, you need to experience some. I suggest trying to council rape victims. Given your track record here, you're bound to say something like "I've never been raped but I've read statistics that say that...". Their reaction to your drivel will at last give you an idea how stupid your arguing from ignorance is & how debilitating public fear can be.
Fear is not something easily worked through, but that doesn't mean that we should let fear control us. There's a reason for limits to government power and the justice system, and undermining them is a far greater threat than rapists, murderers, or terrorists. That's why a judge has to let a defendant go when evidence is gathered improperly.
You know this how, oh ignorant one? Yeah, that's right, you don't, all you know is how to fart while exclaiming "smells like roses".
By studying history. With Muslim extremists, we end up arming/training one group, and they end up fighting us. Timothy Mcveigh was ex-military (thus trained by the US) and set off by Waco and Ruby Ridge. The Boston marathon bombers have been alleged to be double agents, which may have been why we ignored Russia when they said to look out for these guys.
You have to be abysmally ignorant to think that England's courts have anything to do with America (I'll assume the USA because the ignorant often conflate the two terms) but that's neck beards for you..
The risks to Americans and Britons to terrorists is going to be pretty close. I'm not sure about their risk to bathtubs, though. Bees are about on par with them, though.
The influx of people with western passports (that being the UK, France & even the USA For the ignorant) being trained by ISIS who then return (or are sent back) to the west are the most dangerous threats inside our countries. The USA has been lucky up to now to have avoided attacks on this vector. France, where I live, hasn't, nor has the UK.
No, there are plenty of more dangerous mundane threats than terrorists. Basically anything you would expect might kill you, and half of the things that you think couldn't possibly kill you,
You, on the other hand, cower behind those who are attempting to protect you and are well enough protected by them to ignorantly criticize the work of authorities in countries far away. Your theoretical statistics mean nothing to people with something you do not possess: experience.
Those are actual statistics, and while I'm sure your experiences make it hard to grasp the reality. I'm not sure how saying that they aren't a threat is a criticism of authorities other than the authorities trying to grasp power by preying on public fear, for which they obviously deserve criticism.
Also, how am I cowering? The FBI, CIA, and NSA haven't protected me from terrorists. In fact, the US government has arguably had some role in creating just about every terrorist or terrorist group that has attacked domestically. They are a net negative on my susceptibility to terrorist attacks.
Cuddly they are not, but aside from perhaps Putin, they are actually less deadly statistically than plenty of cute and cuddly things. Just because you suck at math doesn't mean we have to give up our freedoms over something less dangerous to the average American than bathtubs.
No, I'm far more cynical than that, and I don't trust the people that claim that they 'protect' us. The reality is that our TLAs and our military are not the good guys.
His biggest success in knowing his customers was being less shitty than myspace to take over the userbase, and using the business strategy from Catrmanland.
What if we are invaded by unicorns and Godzilla at the same time? An unchecked government is a bigger threat than terrorism. In fact, the overreaction of the government is most often an essential part of the terrorist plans, so giving in to fear is part of how 'the terrorists win.' If we were cold, perfectly rational beings, terrorism would be highly ineffective.
Totalitarianism is a much greater threat than terrorism. So, it's not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, it's that your henhouse is better off alone than guarded by foxes.
I meant that if the difference between a Leaf and a Tesla is that the size of the battery, why doesn't Nissan offer an 85kWh battery option or something similar?
So, why don't the manufacturers of said vehicles include or at least have the option for bigger batteries? The Tesla isn't impractical like a half-kilo smartphone would be.
Finally, today's "free trade agreements" have very little to do with tariffs and quotas, and have far more to do with regulatory harmonization.
And 'regulatory harmonization' is effectively 'do what we tell you to do or we'll embargo you', with a number of players doing the same to us. Seeing as how buying bread has little correlation to patents on antidepressants, I don't think it would be all that difficult to defeat such measures with more open debate.
Slashdot Mirror
At the very baseline, the comparison is invalid because their physical natures put them into different economic categories. The cell phone and laptop are private goods (rival, exclusive), while a music recording is a public good (non-rival, non-exclusive) transformed by legal means into a club good (non-rival, exclusive).
Because your expectations of the prison system are already problematic. That's why I used something deliberately absurd hoping you would get the point instead of bickering about the fine details and then genuinely suggesting a barbaric practice..
I certainly would, as would basically any person moderately versed in modern psychology.
If you want cool bands to flourish, kill clear channel.
Sunde's phone and laptop are both rival goods, while music and movies are non-rival goods. Therefore, comparing them is stupid.
Holy shit, why not save us all a step and just lobotomize anybody who gets a speeding ticket? You're delving into supervillain territory there.
Prisoners shouldn't have hope? I'm sure that will have no effect on the degree of repeat offenders.
It looks like stupidity may be contagious after all.
Non-identical twins probably have about the same degree of shared environment as identical twins.
Airports are closed by snow, and I easily found a BBC reference to a single storm that killed 4 people. You do have a unique position on the reaction of politicians. That's the goal of terrorism, so if you react out of fear, then the terrorists have accomplished their goal.
Fear is not something easily worked through, but that doesn't mean that we should let fear control us. There's a reason for limits to government power and the justice system, and undermining them is a far greater threat than rapists, murderers, or terrorists. That's why a judge has to let a defendant go when evidence is gathered improperly.
By studying history. With Muslim extremists, we end up arming/training one group, and they end up fighting us. Timothy Mcveigh was ex-military (thus trained by the US) and set off by Waco and Ruby Ridge. The Boston marathon bombers have been alleged to be double agents, which may have been why we ignored Russia when they said to look out for these guys.
The risks to Americans and Britons to terrorists is going to be pretty close. I'm not sure about their risk to bathtubs, though. Bees are about on par with them, though.
No, there are plenty of more dangerous mundane threats than terrorists. Basically anything you would expect might kill you, and half of the things that you think couldn't possibly kill you,
Those are actual statistics, and while I'm sure your experiences make it hard to grasp the reality. I'm not sure how saying that they aren't a threat is a criticism of authorities other than the authorities trying to grasp power by preying on public fear, for which they obviously deserve criticism.
Also, how am I cowering? The FBI, CIA, and NSA haven't protected me from terrorists. In fact, the US government has arguably had some role in creating just about every terrorist or terrorist group that has attacked domestically. They are a net negative on my susceptibility to terrorist attacks.
Cuddly they are not, but aside from perhaps Putin, they are actually less deadly statistically than plenty of cute and cuddly things. Just because you suck at math doesn't mean we have to give up our freedoms over something less dangerous to the average American than bathtubs.
No, I'm far more cynical than that, and I don't trust the people that claim that they 'protect' us. The reality is that our TLAs and our military are not the good guys.
I'm not asking to have it both ways. The spying is not justified, but outrage over spying is justified.
His biggest success in knowing his customers was being less shitty than myspace to take over the userbase, and using the business strategy from Catrmanland.
What if we are invaded by unicorns and Godzilla at the same time? An unchecked government is a bigger threat than terrorism. In fact, the overreaction of the government is most often an essential part of the terrorist plans, so giving in to fear is part of how 'the terrorists win.' If we were cold, perfectly rational beings, terrorism would be highly ineffective.
Our governments are hypocrites. That doesn't mean they aren't correct in what they say when they are outraged.
Totalitarianism is a much greater threat than terrorism. So, it's not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, it's that your henhouse is better off alone than guarded by foxes.
I meant that if the difference between a Leaf and a Tesla is that the size of the battery, why doesn't Nissan offer an 85kWh battery option or something similar?
So, why don't the manufacturers of said vehicles include or at least have the option for bigger batteries? The Tesla isn't impractical like a half-kilo smartphone would be.
Which is vandalizing actual physical property.
Seems like this is what happened, http://www.smbc-comics.com/ind...
How can you raise an egg, humanely or otherwise?
It depends on the state, as the process is slightly unique for each state, but basically the state laws are almost certainly going to change.
more or less, the British equivalent of the NSA.
And 'regulatory harmonization' is effectively 'do what we tell you to do or we'll embargo you', with a number of players doing the same to us. Seeing as how buying bread has little correlation to patents on antidepressants, I don't think it would be all that difficult to defeat such measures with more open debate.