Nonsense. If you eliminate the prospect of jail time for all non-violent offenders, you would see an explosion in non-violent crime. You can't deter the bad behavior of someone who has no money with fines. And even the threat of a fine is simply not a serious deterrent.
Consider the most lowly form of crime - speeding. Does the threat of a fine or forced defensive driving classes (a form of community service) deter speeders? Hardly at all, everyone speeds, everyday. If the punishment was 30 days in lockup for first time speeding offenders, you would see a dramatic drop in speeding offenses. Jail is much more of a deterrent than a fine.
Every generation has their subset of whiners who think things are rapidly going down the crapper in regards to human rights.
Yet, if you actually study history, every generation has seen the quality of their human rights improve, sometimes a little bit, sometimes by leaps and bounds, as blacks did during the 60's.
We enjoy more freedoms now than ever. We enjoy more transparency in government.
If you were to show the Patriot Act to someone from a previous generation - WWII, perhaps - they would be shocked that we had to pass a special law just to do the simple things the Patriot law does. They would have assumed we were doing those things at a bare minimum. And if you told them the Patriot Act was in response to a terrorist act that killed 3000 people, they would consider you derelict in your duty to protect the homeland for doing so little.
I think you make great points, and it's certainly a better system that what we have now. Private ownership is far preferable to submitting yourself to government authority and rules, which change with the political winds. But what you propose is not likely to ever happen; my comments were directed at dealing with the situation we have now.
So as long as some other people vote to ban my ability to read certain books, it's not censorship?
Yes, that's censorship. It also has nothing to do with my post.
I don't want to tell you want to watch or read and frankly I don't care what decisions you make about your own life if it only affects you. But don't tell me I have to support your version of how best to use a public resource. We all get a say in that.
It's more fascistic for you to say taxpayers have no right to democratically control the use of a publicly owned asset than for me to suggest common-sense decency standards are acceptable when determining the best use of a public resource. If I woke up tomorrow and the FCC determined that the airwaves should be "anything goes", it would be fine with me as long as that decision goes through our democratic process. Since the FCC was created by Congress and is controlled by the executive, I can rest easy in knowing that yes, I did have a say in the use of this asset. If I think the FCC screwed up, I can vote for leaders who share my views.
You've just described the modus operandi of the entire government, not just the FCC. Define something vaguely, start issuing fines, and then see what sticks in the court system.
Broadcast companies don't own the airwaves. When a broadcast company like Fox acquires a license from the govt to broadcast, they agree to follow the FCC's rules and operate in the public's best interest.
For instance, it has been against FCC rules since 1971 to show tobacco ads on broadcast TV. The courts have upheld this rule. Moreover, broadcasters must show anti-smoking advertisements at their own expense as a condition of holding a broadcast license.
In any private medium this would clearly be censorship. However, when using a public space, and therefore accepting a public subsidy, the public may put restrictions on you to whatever degree they wish. The prevailing standards of decency should prevail. If you dislike the current standards, there is a democratic process in place by which you can make a changes.
The Pacific Institute also wants to cherry pick data and use 1990 as a base in EU vs. US comparisons - because the EU growth from 1990-1996 was near 0%, thus giving the EU an advantage in any analysis of EU greenhouse gas rates vs the US rates. They claim to be using a UN standard date of 1990, but that date is a reference for goals, not a means to compare current rates of CO2 growth.
Here's a key question for supporters of the EU on this issue and the Pacific Institute: why were EU rates not growing PRIOR to Kyoto, but then started growing after Kyoto, while in the US the growth has actually slowed since 2000?
It is common for state regulations to be enforced by private sub-contractors which charge fees. This means less cost for the government.
In this case, because there is a free speech issue with the regulation, both the state and sub-contractor are getting sued instead instead collecting fees. So the regulation is costing money instead of making it.
My advice for the people of Utah is that if they believe the regulation is a good one, why should it matter if it turns a profit? If protecting kids is their goal, they should fight this to the bitter end.
If I hear a suspicious noise at night, I don't want a cop to stop and wait for every light to turn green on the way to my neighborhood because he doesn't want a ticket, or doesn't want to do the paperwork it would take to get out of the ticket...The cop needs to get there as quickly and safely as possible and shouldn't have other things on his mind.
Whether you agree with Lindzen or his skeptics, one thing you must conclude from the article is that global climate is still not understood well enough for anyone to make accurate predictions of what will happen in 1 year, 10 years, 100 years. It is clear from the article that the role of clouds (which is only one component of many in climate change) is still being seriously debated, for instance.
And those predictions are always based on models which includes assumptions about how different components of climate change interact.
It's much easier to believe information about Mars because the readings are extremely accurate and only come from modern instruments, and we know there is no human influence on temperature. There are no politics in looking at 6 years of temperature data and saying "Yep, it's warmer!". Most people agree the Earth is warmer now as well. The Earth temperature record has problems because when and where and with what instrument you take the measurement are all important and have changed over the years. This is a legitimate debate.
I've been reading a lot of comments about how the govt shouldn't be regulating content on TV, that parents should be more involved in their kids lives and use available technology to control their access to sexual and violent content. I certainly have no objection to parents being involved, but I do have an objection to the idea that govt shouldn't be regulating content on public airwaves. The airwaves belong to the people, and the content allowed on them should be determined by our democratic institutions. Every broadcaster has received a public subsidy in being allowed exclusive access to certain bandwidths in certain markets, and they are bound to follow whatever rules issue from the govt.
I also disagree with the "If you don't like it, turn if off" crowd. As an American, I have the right to speak out against those things in the culture I find offensive, and I also have the right to petition the govt. for redress. Since the govt is the owner of the airwaves (as custodian of the people) then it is a violation of my rights to say I cannot petition them. While I think the media reflects culture, not creates it, I still reserve the right to democratic change of our public institutions.
For those who think I'm a prude or a busy-body, I actually favor more sex to be allowed on TV, I think the current rules are dreadfully restrictive. However, the current rules have been arrived at in a democratic fashion (albeit imperfect), and I respect that.
Consider for a moment what liberals might think if one of the major networks went to "all white supremacist" content. How long would it take for them to try to get it shutdown? They are already trying to re-instate the fairness doctrine on radio due to the success of conservative talk radio (and the subsequent failure of liberal talk radio).
Like it or not, the only reason we have anything to fear from Islamic terrorists is because we've spent decades interfering with their politics. You can't fight an idea, but you can arrange things so that people don't have any motive to blow themselves up.
History does not agree with you, for reasons others have pointed out. This has been going on for centuries. The only thing that has changed in the past few decades is that oil wealth and technology have finally made it possible for Islamic terrorists to effectively strike us at home in the US and Europe.
The important factor is that Western cultural ideas are threatening conservative Islamic ideas - this is the real threat the jihadists perceive. They don't hate our interference in politics, it's our "interference" in their culture. Are you willing to compromise your liberal Western values to appease Islamic conservatives? Are you willing to ignore their hideous human rights abuses?
Re:freaking me out
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Oh, and not to mention the fact that it was the Supreme Court that handed Bush the win in 2000, stopping a recount that we now know would have resulted in a Gore win. You mean the recount of heavily Democratic counties ordered by the Democratic Florida Supreme Court that used different criteria per county, thus violating the Florida state constitution and election laws? The truth is the Supreme Court stopped the Florida Supreme Court from trying to find a way to steal the election for Gore. And all of the analysis I've seen shows that Bush would have won after most recount methods - something like 5 out of 7 different voting criteria. Get over it.
Do you know the reason why the top ten taxpayers were only paying taxes on only 50% of their income? US tax law allows charitable contributions of 50% of gross income, no limit. It's quite possible that rich people would rather give their money away than let the govt waste it.
Except many of the persons infected with BSE prions in England were home gardeners who used animal fertilizer on their plants. So being a vegan doesn't prevent you from getting the disease, it just makes you a little more smug than the rest of us who don't have the will power to resist our natural appetites.
If this is the only ding you have on your credit report, employers can note the distinction between a medical related debt and something like consistently missing your mortgage payment.
Why should an employer have any information about you or your family's medical history before making the decision to hire you?
What if you owe a tremendous abount of money to a cancer clinic? Don't you think a prospective employer might decide not to hire someone who *may* have a terminal disease and generally poor health? What about someone who owes money to a psychiatrist?
Employers may "note the distinction between a medical related debt" and decide not to hire you, using poor credit as a legal excuse.
Once Iran actually uses oil as a weapon, the game will be over for them. The only reason the world tolerates their belligerence is the world (particularly Europe) needs the oil. A blockade would come first, it's hard to sell oil to China when you can't get your ships out of the Persian Gulf. Even if they did sell to China or Russia, this would just decrease worldwide demand by the same amount, so it's not an ultra-scary threat to begin with...
I'm not much of a supporter of the ACLU, but there are many people who would not receive any justice at all if it weren't for pro bono work. You don't get a court appointed lawyer in civil cases.
Besides, the ACLU doesn't need court fees, they are supported by some extremely wealthy people. They're LAWYERS, after all.
My main complaint about the ACLU's tactics are that they often bring litigation against the govt entities knowing the govt would rather give in than pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs (fees that are never recoverable). Remember, the ACLU will get fees if they win, but won't have to pay anything if they lose.
Also, I think the ACLU is using the courts to impose a socialist political agenda rather than one based on the idea of long established American civil liberties. For instance, instead of truly supporting a separation of church and state, they have actually brought about a situation where the state is actively censoring religious expression on the (I think irrelevent) pretext of some state property being involved in the expression. The concept of a state "endorsement" of religion has been changed from the passage of legislation establishing a church to a student simply thanking God in a commencement speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. If you eliminate the prospect of jail time for all non-violent offenders, you would see an explosion in non-violent crime. You can't deter the bad behavior of someone who has no money with fines. And even the threat of a fine is simply not a serious deterrent.
Consider the most lowly form of crime - speeding. Does the threat of a fine or forced defensive driving classes (a form of community service) deter speeders? Hardly at all, everyone speeds, everyday. If the punishment was 30 days in lockup for first time speeding offenders, you would see a dramatic drop in speeding offenses. Jail is much more of a deterrent than a fine.
Every generation has their subset of whiners who think things are rapidly going down the crapper in regards to human rights.
Yet, if you actually study history, every generation has seen the quality of their human rights improve, sometimes a little bit, sometimes by leaps and bounds, as blacks did during the 60's.
We enjoy more freedoms now than ever. We enjoy more transparency in government.
If you were to show the Patriot Act to someone from a previous generation - WWII, perhaps - they would be shocked that we had to pass a special law just to do the simple things the Patriot law does. They would have assumed we were doing those things at a bare minimum. And if you told them the Patriot Act was in response to a terrorist act that killed 3000 people, they would consider you derelict in your duty to protect the homeland for doing so little.
Actually, we're pointing out your hypocrisy. And I think Scooter should have gone to jail.
I think you make great points, and it's certainly a better system that what we have now. Private ownership is far preferable to submitting yourself to government authority and rules, which change with the political winds. But what you propose is not likely to ever happen; my comments were directed at dealing with the situation we have now.
So as long as some other people vote to ban my ability to read certain books, it's not censorship?
Yes, that's censorship. It also has nothing to do with my post.
I don't want to tell you want to watch or read and frankly I don't care what decisions you make about your own life if it only affects you. But don't tell me I have to support your version of how best to use a public resource. We all get a say in that.
It's more fascistic for you to say taxpayers have no right to democratically control the use of a publicly owned asset than for me to suggest common-sense decency standards are acceptable when determining the best use of a public resource. If I woke up tomorrow and the FCC determined that the airwaves should be "anything goes", it would be fine with me as long as that decision goes through our democratic process. Since the FCC was created by Congress and is controlled by the executive, I can rest easy in knowing that yes, I did have a say in the use of this asset. If I think the FCC screwed up, I can vote for leaders who share my views.
We have constitutionally protected free speech; we don't have the right to a public subsidy for speech. The airwaves are a public asset.
You've just described the modus operandi of the entire government, not just the FCC. Define something vaguely, start issuing fines, and then see what sticks in the court system.
Broadcast companies don't own the airwaves. When a broadcast company like Fox acquires a license from the govt to broadcast, they agree to follow the FCC's rules and operate in the public's best interest.
For instance, it has been against FCC rules since 1971 to show tobacco ads on broadcast TV. The courts have upheld this rule. Moreover, broadcasters must show anti-smoking advertisements at their own expense as a condition of holding a broadcast license.
In any private medium this would clearly be censorship. However, when using a public space, and therefore accepting a public subsidy, the public may put restrictions on you to whatever degree they wish. The prevailing standards of decency should prevail. If you dislike the current standards, there is a democratic process in place by which you can make a changes.
All these cries of censorship are just nonsense.
The Pacific Institute also wants to cherry pick data and use 1990 as a base in EU vs. US comparisons - because the EU growth from 1990-1996 was near 0%, thus giving the EU an advantage in any analysis of EU greenhouse gas rates vs the US rates. They claim to be using a UN standard date of 1990, but that date is a reference for goals, not a means to compare current rates of CO2 growth.
Here's a key question for supporters of the EU on this issue and the Pacific Institute: why were EU rates not growing PRIOR to Kyoto, but then started growing after Kyoto, while in the US the growth has actually slowed since 2000?
It is common for state regulations to be enforced by private sub-contractors which charge fees. This means less cost for the government.
In this case, because there is a free speech issue with the regulation, both the state and sub-contractor are getting sued instead instead collecting fees. So the regulation is costing money instead of making it.
My advice for the people of Utah is that if they believe the regulation is a good one, why should it matter if it turns a profit? If protecting kids is their goal, they should fight this to the bitter end.
$200K? If you don't want to play, don't bother showing up.
If I hear a suspicious noise at night, I don't want a cop to stop and wait for every light to turn green on the way to my neighborhood because he doesn't want a ticket, or doesn't want to do the paperwork it would take to get out of the ticket...The cop needs to get there as quickly and safely as possible and shouldn't have other things on his mind.
In other news, snow is wet when it melts. Film at 11.
Well, this for starters:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/
Whether you agree with Lindzen or his skeptics, one thing you must conclude from the article is that global climate is still not understood well enough for anyone to make accurate predictions of what will happen in 1 year, 10 years, 100 years. It is clear from the article that the role of clouds (which is only one component of many in climate change) is still being seriously debated, for instance.
And those predictions are always based on models which includes assumptions about how different components of climate change interact.
It's much easier to believe information about Mars because the readings are extremely accurate and only come from modern instruments, and we know there is no human influence on temperature. There are no politics in looking at 6 years of temperature data and saying "Yep, it's warmer!". Most people agree the Earth is warmer now as well. The Earth temperature record has problems because when and where and with what instrument you take the measurement are all important and have changed over the years. This is a legitimate debate.
I've been reading a lot of comments about how the govt shouldn't be regulating content on TV, that parents should be more involved in their kids lives and use available technology to control their access to sexual and violent content. I certainly have no objection to parents being involved, but I do have an objection to the idea that govt shouldn't be regulating content on public airwaves. The airwaves belong to the people, and the content allowed on them should be determined by our democratic institutions. Every broadcaster has received a public subsidy in being allowed exclusive access to certain bandwidths in certain markets, and they are bound to follow whatever rules issue from the govt.
I also disagree with the "If you don't like it, turn if off" crowd. As an American, I have the right to speak out against those things in the culture I find offensive, and I also have the right to petition the govt. for redress. Since the govt is the owner of the airwaves (as custodian of the people) then it is a violation of my rights to say I cannot petition them. While I think the media reflects culture, not creates it, I still reserve the right to democratic change of our public institutions.
For those who think I'm a prude or a busy-body, I actually favor more sex to be allowed on TV, I think the current rules are dreadfully restrictive. However, the current rules have been arrived at in a democratic fashion (albeit imperfect), and I respect that.
Consider for a moment what liberals might think if one of the major networks went to "all white supremacist" content. How long would it take for them to try to get it shutdown? They are already trying to re-instate the fairness doctrine on radio due to the success of conservative talk radio (and the subsequent failure of liberal talk radio).
History does not agree with you, for reasons others have pointed out. This has been going on for centuries. The only thing that has changed in the past few decades is that oil wealth and technology have finally made it possible for Islamic terrorists to effectively strike us at home in the US and Europe.
The important factor is that Western cultural ideas are threatening conservative Islamic ideas - this is the real threat the jihadists perceive. They don't hate our interference in politics, it's our "interference" in their culture. Are you willing to compromise your liberal Western values to appease Islamic conservatives? Are you willing to ignore their hideous human rights abuses?
Oh, and not to mention the fact that it was the Supreme Court that handed Bush the win in 2000, stopping a recount that we now know would have resulted in a Gore win.
You mean the recount of heavily Democratic counties ordered by the Democratic Florida Supreme Court that used different criteria per county, thus violating the Florida state constitution and election laws? The truth is the Supreme Court stopped the Florida Supreme Court from trying to find a way to steal the election for Gore. And all of the analysis I've seen shows that Bush would have won after most recount methods - something like 5 out of 7 different voting criteria. Get over it.
A stronger candidate could have beat Bush in 2004. Kerry was indecisive, elitist, and unlikeable.
Do you know the reason why the top ten taxpayers were only paying taxes on only 50% of their income? US tax law allows charitable contributions of 50% of gross income, no limit. It's quite possible that rich people would rather give their money away than let the govt waste it.
Except many of the persons infected with BSE prions in England were home gardeners who used animal fertilizer on their plants. So being a vegan doesn't prevent you from getting the disease, it just makes you a little more smug than the rest of us who don't have the will power to resist our natural appetites.
Borat joke in 5...4...3...2...1
HDMI and HDCP enabled NVidia graphics
I think you mean HDMI and HDCP DISabled Nvidia graphics. These technologies prevent usage, not enable it.
If this is the only ding you have on your credit report, employers can note the distinction between a medical related debt and something like consistently missing your mortgage payment.
Why should an employer have any information about you or your family's medical history before making the decision to hire you?
What if you owe a tremendous abount of money to a cancer clinic? Don't you think a prospective employer might decide not to hire someone who *may* have a terminal disease and generally poor health? What about someone who owes money to a psychiatrist?
Employers may "note the distinction between a medical related debt" and decide not to hire you, using poor credit as a legal excuse.
Once Iran actually uses oil as a weapon, the game will be over for them. The only reason the world tolerates their belligerence is the world (particularly Europe) needs the oil. A blockade would come first, it's hard to sell oil to China when you can't get your ships out of the Persian Gulf. Even if they did sell to China or Russia, this would just decrease worldwide demand by the same amount, so it's not an ultra-scary threat to begin with...
I'm not much of a supporter of the ACLU, but there are many people who would not receive any justice at all if it weren't for pro bono work. You don't get a court appointed lawyer in civil cases.
Besides, the ACLU doesn't need court fees, they are supported by some extremely wealthy people. They're LAWYERS, after all.
My main complaint about the ACLU's tactics are that they often bring litigation against the govt entities knowing the govt would rather give in than pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs (fees that are never recoverable). Remember, the ACLU will get fees if they win, but won't have to pay anything if they lose.
Also, I think the ACLU is using the courts to impose a socialist political agenda rather than one based on the idea of long established American civil liberties. For instance, instead of truly supporting a separation of church and state, they have actually brought about a situation where the state is actively censoring religious expression on the (I think irrelevent) pretext of some state property being involved in the expression. The concept of a state "endorsement" of religion has been changed from the passage of legislation establishing a church to a student simply thanking God in a commencement speech.