What troubles me is that terrorist/insurgent propaganda is uncritically forwarded as the truth, and any release that supports American activities or interests is mindlessly decried as propoganda.
Propaganda- media efforts to garner and maintain support for any serious national undertaking- is absolutely vital to an endevour's success. We seem to have forgotten this and yielded the propoganda floor largely to the islamists we're fighting.
I certainly don't expect you to agree that we should be making much more serious efforts to 'sell' this war- and we can do it without lying- but hey, it's the topic of conversation, so what the hell.
By the way, Fox is a piss-poor propoganda organ for the USA. But it's resistance to being endlessly supercritical of the administration and occasionally supporting it gets it labeled as such.
When your only basis of comparison is typical 'if it bleeds it leads' and 'no news is good news' outlets, I can see how you would come to that conclusion.
These days, neither are US newspapers, since they're subject to censorship from many directions
And nevermind the fact that they just make things up. Rather Gate, the recent Jamil Huissen problem (does he exist? doesn't he? Shouldn't that be simple?), AFP rank amatuer photo editing, etc, etc.
For trustworthy news, we now have to go to foreign news media
Bwah ha ha. That's cute. The 'news' industry is shit worldwide for a great variety of reasons, very few of them having to do with Bush and Co. Your fawning xenophilia clouds you from seeing that the world is covered with assholes who have agendas, imperfections, and external influences.
These things make the as-reported news from anyone, anywhere in the world highly suspect. The fact that someone is outside US influence does not earn them an automatic stamp of purity.
I do think you're being patronizing and you imply blind people are stupid. Really, in a room with animal noises and a gun loaded with blanks? Mental retardation and blindness don't go hand in hand.
There is more to hunting than pulling the trigger as other posters have pointed out. I suggest you read those posts.
Further, the blind hunt is several states as it is and everything seems to work out just fine. Real world experience trumps your irrational fears and ignorance of hunting.
Blind people aren't stupid. Well, some might be, as is the case in any population, but as a whole they aren't.
I'm sure blind hunters are familiar with the destructive capabilities of a firearm. Given that, I'm sure they have justified confidence in their spotter to not give them bad advice. Likewise, I'm sure the spotter doesn't want to fuck their blind hunting partner by giving them unreliable information as to how to aim and when to pull the trigger.
Given that they are allowed to and do hunt in several states I'd say that blind hunting isn't actually a problem that you should be worried about.
Rather cheeky of a British subject (not citizen) to lecture Americans about freedom.
Yeah, we've got our problems. That's life. We'll deal with this McCain asshole and his ridiculous proposition.
Isn't it convienent that you have America to mock so that you can ignore your own problems and pretend your nation is better than ours?
Do I really need to start a list of all the crap you brits put up with that wouldn't fly over here for a second? And if I did, would you just say that's media fear mongering and I don't know what the hell I'm talking about? And if so, how is that any different than you commenting on a damn thing going on over here?
We are aware of you Europeans. But we're not talking about you. Not everything is about you guys, don't you know? Not everything is about the US either, but this article is
Anyway, It always helps to read the FAQ.
Especially the Slashdot version.
I quote:
Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?
Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.
It is worth noting that there is a Japanese Slashdot run by VA Japan. While we helped them a little in their early days, they essentially run their own content without any real involvement from us... none of us can read Kanji! There are currently no plans to do other language or nation specific Slashdot sites.
Do europeans want a pity mention every time a discussion of the North American market comes up?
An interesting andendum to that is that the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to have kids. Now there are certainly a great deal of sensible reasons for that, but my favorite one from the otherwise educated and intelligent people is thus:
I/We're not having any kids because we want to be good stewards of the earth, there are too many people already.
The response being:
If intelligent and useful people don't have kids and raise them properly, whose hands do you think you're delivering the earth into?!?
This gets scarier when you realize that this is already happening in several European countries as natives stop reproducing and the children of over-breeding, uneducated, unassimilated immigrants from 3rd world countries are taking over demographically and in some cases quite literally.
My fiancee and I are planning on having 3, maybe 4 kids, to do our part to counteract this sort of downward pull on societies. Find a pretty geekette and do yours!
The ballot needs to be tangible, a physical object that the voter can inspect (handle, read and verify) and it should be the official record of the vote. If you want to have the touch screen machine give you an insta-count, fine (though I wouldn't) but the actual ballots should also be counted, every time, by hardware too dumb to hack, and if the counts differ the physical ballot count should be the one that is used.
What we do in NH is so basic and straightfoward I can't imagine why it's not widespread:
1. Paper ballot, 8.5"x 11" sheet. Fill in the circle next to the guy you want to vote for. 2. Insert into scantron machine/ballot collector. Instantly tallied but the paper votes are really, really easy to read and rescan. 3. Screw up your ballot? Just give it to a poll worker and get a new one.
I ask this as an interested graveyard shift worker- is working the graveyard shift alone enough to justify a prescription for a bonafide doctor, not some internet character? And I ask this knowing you're not a doctor.
I work a rotating shift, so I have to get on a midnight shift schedule for a week and then get right off of it again. Obviously it's a pain in the ass ob both ends and I already use caffiene and sleeping pills to try to smooth things over.
If they had a legal leg to stand on, the Blizz team would have left him with their list of legal complaints, not taken it back after allowing him to briefly look at it. They can afford a few pieces of paper in a legal process.
I don't see any other way to interpret their behavoir. Their complaints wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, so they don't let him scrutinize it.
That being said, there are two reasons people grind: to level a toon they want to actually play, and to gather cash so that they don't have to grind for it to support their raiding habits.
They could eliminate the former reason by giving new characters on an account with one or two max level characters perma double xp, or triple or something along those lines.
If leveling subsequent characters was much faster a good deal of folks would lose interest in bots. That is an old complaint, to be sure, but it's relevant.
It doesn't change the thermodynamics. It does change the type and location of the power generation. It's an economic tool which would substantially increase the overall efficiency of the power generators by making the inefficient ones uneconomic.
There are numerous reasons why power plants are located in the places they are- some NIMBY, some regulatory, some thermodynamic, some supply chain.
You would undo or override all those countless valid and important reasons in your quest for perfect efficiency? You're like some statist tree hugging socialist freak who took one technology elective in college and now thinks he knows enough to use the frightful and destructive power of the government, overruling countless other rationale he dismisses as 'greedy' or 'selfish' without the slightest evaluation of them.
You propose spending countless dollars of other peoples money in order to sooth your conscience. How noble of you.
Here's the bottom line: District Heating/Cooling is already installed where it makes sense. There's a reason why we use electricity to move around heat: It's a very convienent way to move energy, and it drives itself, so to speak. Which do you think is cheaper to install and maintain?
Pipes and pumps? 0r some wiring strung along a pole? And do you think the government can limitlessly tax its way into building the thermal efficiency you hold so very, very dear?
There are so many factors here you do not even begin to grasp. All you see is waste heat == BAD!
When people escaped the DDR (East Germany), specifically over the Berlin Wall - the West Germans helped them in any way possible with open arms, short of provoking war.
Now we shoot them?
No, the S. Koreans shoot them.
Why don't you ask one of them about it?
Any South Koreans here able to shed some light on it?
Carnot efficiency is limited by the lowest and the highest temperatures in a power cycle. In my nuke plant our highest temperature is around 600 deg F, our lowest temperature is around 40 deg F (ocean water). This gives a maximum theoretical efficiency of 50%, and we actually run about 36% efficient or so. We've spent millions of dollars in the past few refueling outages to increase our effeciency a percent or two- a.1% increase in effiecency translates to over $600,000 a year in revenue. The only heat we waste is the heat we cannot possibly use.
The discharge temperature of our steam turbines is around 100 deg F (into a vaccuum), and the water we use to cool that final stage is put back in the ocean at around 80 deg F. With those kind of relatively low temperatures it's hard to pipe it around efficiently to heat buildings. If it was econimical we'd do it for heating our own buildings at the very least. We don't, we use a small amount of steam diverted from power generation to heat the buildings during cold New England winters.
So yeah, power companies are very, very interested in maximizing thermal efficiency.
The latest fossil fuel plants are combined cycle plants. They burn fuel to spin a 'normal' turbine connected to a generator. The turbine exhaust is then routed through a heat exchanger to create steam, and then that steam is used to spin another turbine, or to add power to steam turbines inline with the original gas turbine.The high temperature in these systems is 1300 Deg C, and the low temperature depending on location can be 3-5 deg C.
In real applications the thermal efficiency of these Combined Cycle plants is 59%. If you want to generate heat and electricity, you can achieve thermal efficiecies as high as 85%.
It's highly ironic that power stations produce more energy as heat than they do as electricity. No, it's not ironic, it's just the limitations of the physics involved. Basic thermodynamics.
This isn't going to happen any time soon, economically it simply isn't worth while, it's much cheaper to dig up coal or pipe oil or gas. That could change with the flick of a pen though. At the moment every working individual pays 30%-40% of their income as taxation, get rid of it and add the equivalent level of taxation to fuel sources, in particular the non green methods of generation.
Taxation doesn't change the thermodynamics involved with the low discharge temperatures, heat losses from even insulated piping to move it around, energy costs of the pumps to move said heat, and the population densities involved.
Power plants of any type aren't typically found near lots of people for various reasons. Mostly because they are industrial facilities- they're large, ugly, often noisy and some of them stink.
District heating and cooling is already used when it's feasible. College campuses and cities are your best examples. Advocating taxation to counter thermodynamics does not reflect well on your grasp of the issues.
But letting the "free market" handle it is suicide. You'd end up with multiple "tiers" of schools. Good schools for rich people, bad schools for poor people. Which is exactly how it is now, except that the poor people would be even WORSE off, because they'd be paying more, and wouldn't get any funding from the state to fix things, or any hope of changing the situation through elections.
a few seconds of google-fu and you can check your dire predictions against school voucher programs in practice.
A few articles & discussions on the topic are linked from HERE , you can check them all out at your convienence. The site clearly advocates school choice but links to some independant research you can judge for yourself.
For your specific issue of the poor getting screwed under this system, well, this certainly applies:
At present, educational choice is concentrated among wealthier families, who can opt for private schooling, and who can more easily relocate to areas with better quality schools. Poor inner city children, by contrast, are frequently stuck in dilapidated government school buildings and offered an abysmally poor education compared with their suburban counterparts. This is the baseline to which alternative forms of school governance must be compared.
The question is thus, would vouchers or some other form of scholarships for low-income families reduce or enlarge the educational gap between rich and poor that exists in public schools.
More discussion follows, but here's the point: The poor have no choice in most places. Given even a few imperfect choices, they could surely do better than what they already have.
Doom,gloom and FUD are fun but that's no excuse not to do a little searching when trying to predict consequences of things that have already happened.
Honestly I don't see why everyone doesn't use New Hampshire's system.
I don't see how it could get significantly faster, simpler, or even cheaper.
1. A scantron sheet with four columns: Office, Republicans, Democrats, Other/write in. Fill in the circle next to the guy you want to elect. Screw up? Just get another sheet.
2. Put it in the machine at the exit. The Votes are instantly tallied and a simple to read paper ballot is right there for checking. No hanging chads. No screens out of sync. Easily Verified. And cheap- two or three machines per polling site.
Reposting Comment ID 16221975 by Hayden, User # 9724:
Here's one I got from an article a while back:
So there it is: IT analysts are basically corporate technology therapists. But there are other ways of looking at it, one of which was put succinctly some years ago by Charles Wang, the billionaire chairman of software giant Computer Associates. He was asked to assess the quality of Gartner's researchers. "I want to choose my words carefully here, so I'm not misunderstood," he said. "They're a bunch of fucking idiots."
No one was ever talking about dueling. To reiterate: Some UK pansy thinks it's illegal to track down someone who has wronged you and demand restitution. I say such actions are perfectly rational and the point out in many states in the US you can go even farther.
Sometime's it's pretty crystal clear that you've been wronged. You don't need an objective third party to sort the truth out, you need it set right.
I'd say tracking down the offender and giving him a chance to set things right is rational. If he can solve it himself, than it's better than clogging up the courts and relying on the police to sort out petty crimes.
Note that the OP didn't mention that he threatened the perp in anyway, and he wouldn't have to. Merely being identified is probably enough to scare such fraudsters into compliance as they have a lot more to lose than the money if the wronged party goes to the cops with a positive identification.
With respect to personal property, the general view is that an owner may not commit an assault or battery upon the wrongdoer in order to recover property. A majority of jurisdictions recognize the right of an owner in hot pursuit of stolen property to use a reasonable amount of force to retrieve it. In some states, stolen property may be taken back peaceably wherever it is found, even if it is necessary to enter another's premises. In all cases, the infliction of an unreasonable amount of harm will vitiate the defense.
You have to check your own state laws, but it sounds like you're from a blue state. Or the UK. You at least have the 'hot pursuit' option, which didn't apply to this particular case but surely some jurisdictions are more lenient. You know how to use google too, so do so if you want more.
The original person I was responding to seemed to be getting all squemish at the very thought of an individual doing anything to set things right when he's been wronged. It's that pathetic, passive, make-me-a-victim mentality which I mock, and the absurd and naive implication that the 'authorities' will set things right.
We would benefit greatly from protecting the weak and innocent from murderous aggression in Darfur.
We would not benefit materially, and probably not even politically. If you don't have either of those things, real-world concerns tend to trump moral idealism.
Slashdot Mirror
What troubles me is that terrorist/insurgent propaganda is uncritically forwarded as the truth, and any release that supports American activities or interests is mindlessly decried as propoganda.
Propaganda- media efforts to garner and maintain support for any serious national undertaking- is absolutely vital to an endevour's success. We seem to have forgotten this and yielded the propoganda floor largely to the islamists we're fighting.
I certainly don't expect you to agree that we should be making much more serious efforts to 'sell' this war- and we can do it without lying- but hey, it's the topic of conversation, so what the hell.
By the way, Fox is a piss-poor propoganda organ for the USA. But it's resistance to being endlessly supercritical of the administration and occasionally supporting it gets it labeled as such.
When your only basis of comparison is typical 'if it bleeds it leads' and 'no news is good news' outlets, I can see how you would come to that conclusion.
These days, neither are US newspapers, since they're subject to censorship from many directions
And nevermind the fact that they just make things up. Rather Gate, the recent Jamil Huissen problem (does he exist? doesn't he? Shouldn't that be simple?), AFP rank amatuer photo editing, etc, etc.
For trustworthy news, we now have to go to foreign news media
Bwah ha ha. That's cute. The 'news' industry is shit worldwide for a great variety of reasons, very few of them having to do with Bush and Co. Your fawning xenophilia clouds you from seeing that the world is covered with assholes who have agendas, imperfections, and external influences.
These things make the as-reported news from anyone, anywhere in the world highly suspect. The fact that someone is outside US influence does not earn them an automatic stamp of purity.
I don't think you're being heartless.
I do think you're being patronizing and you imply blind people are stupid. Really, in a room with animal noises and a gun loaded with blanks? Mental retardation and blindness don't go hand in hand.
There is more to hunting than pulling the trigger as other posters have pointed out. I suggest you read those posts.
Further, the blind hunt is several states as it is and everything seems to work out just fine. Real world experience trumps your irrational fears and ignorance of hunting.
Blind people aren't stupid. Well, some might be, as is the case in any population, but as a whole they aren't.
I'm sure blind hunters are familiar with the destructive capabilities of a firearm. Given that, I'm sure they have justified confidence in their spotter to not give them bad advice. Likewise, I'm sure the spotter doesn't want to fuck their blind hunting partner by giving them unreliable information as to how to aim and when to pull the trigger.
Given that they are allowed to and do hunt in several states I'd say that blind hunting isn't actually a problem that you should be worried about.
Rather cheeky of a British subject (not citizen) to lecture Americans about freedom.
Yeah, we've got our problems. That's life. We'll deal with this McCain asshole and his ridiculous proposition.
Isn't it convienent that you have America to mock so that you can ignore your own problems and pretend your nation is better than ours?
Do I really need to start a list of all the crap you brits put up with that wouldn't fly over here for a second?
And if I did, would you just say that's media fear mongering and I don't know what the hell I'm talking about?
And if so, how is that any different than you commenting on a damn thing going on over here?
We are aware of you Europeans. But we're not talking about you. Not everything is about you guys, don't you know? Not everything is about the US either, but this article is
Anyway, It always helps to read the FAQ.
Especially the Slashdot version.
I quote:
Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?
Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.
It is worth noting that there is a Japanese Slashdot run by VA Japan. While we helped them a little in their early days, they essentially run their own content without any real involvement from us... none of us can read Kanji! There are currently no plans to do other language or nation specific Slashdot sites.
Do europeans want a pity mention every time a discussion of the North American market comes up?
An interesting andendum to that is that the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to have kids.
Now there are certainly a great deal of sensible reasons for that, but my favorite one from the otherwise educated and intelligent people is thus:
I/We're not having any kids because we want to be good stewards of the earth, there are too many people already.
The response being:
If intelligent and useful people don't have kids and raise them properly, whose hands do you think you're delivering the earth into?!?
This gets scarier when you realize that this is already happening in several European countries as natives stop reproducing and the children of over-breeding, uneducated, unassimilated immigrants from 3rd world countries are taking over demographically and in some cases quite literally.
My fiancee and I are planning on having 3, maybe 4 kids, to do our part to counteract this sort of downward pull on societies. Find a pretty geekette and do yours!
The ballot needs to be tangible, a physical object that the voter can inspect (handle, read and verify) and it should be the official record of the vote. If you want to have the touch screen machine give you an insta-count, fine (though I wouldn't) but the actual ballots should also be counted, every time, by hardware too dumb to hack, and if the counts differ the physical ballot count should be the one that is used.
What we do in NH is so basic and straightfoward I can't imagine why it's not widespread:
1. Paper ballot, 8.5"x 11" sheet. Fill in the circle next to the guy you want to vote for.
2. Insert into scantron machine/ballot collector. Instantly tallied but the paper votes are really, really easy to read and rescan.
3. Screw up your ballot? Just give it to a poll worker and get a new one.
Sails and tight schedules don't go well together.
I ask this as an interested graveyard shift worker- is working the graveyard shift alone enough to justify a prescription for a bonafide doctor, not some internet character? And I ask this knowing you're not a doctor.
I work a rotating shift, so I have to get on a midnight shift schedule for a week and then get right off of it again. Obviously it's a pain in the ass ob both ends and I already use caffiene and sleeping pills to try to smooth things over.
If they had a legal leg to stand on, the Blizz team would have left him with their list of legal complaints, not taken it back after allowing him to briefly look at it. They can afford a few pieces of paper in a legal process.
I don't see any other way to interpret their behavoir. Their complaints wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, so they don't let him scrutinize it.
That being said, there are two reasons people grind: to level a toon they want to actually play, and to gather cash so that they don't have to grind for it to support their raiding habits.
They could eliminate the former reason by giving new characters on an account with one or two max level characters perma double xp, or triple or something along those lines.
If leveling subsequent characters was much faster a good deal of folks would lose interest in bots. That is an old complaint, to be sure, but it's relevant.
Yeah, it couldn't be the marketing department driving up the SPF, or greater knowledge about skin cancer.
No, it's got to be that the suns rays are more dangerous now, and it's because of humans.
Did I just about cover your position?
It doesn't change the thermodynamics. It does change the type and location of the power generation. It's an economic tool which would substantially increase the overall efficiency of the power generators by making the inefficient ones uneconomic.
There are numerous reasons why power plants are located in the places they are- some NIMBY, some regulatory, some thermodynamic, some supply chain.
You would undo or override all those countless valid and important reasons in your quest for perfect efficiency? You're like some statist tree hugging socialist freak who took one technology elective in college and now thinks he knows enough to use the frightful and destructive power of the government, overruling countless other rationale he dismisses as 'greedy' or 'selfish' without the slightest evaluation of them.
You propose spending countless dollars of other peoples money in order to sooth your conscience. How noble of you.
Here's the bottom line: District Heating/Cooling is already installed where it makes sense. There's a reason why we use electricity to move around heat: It's a very convienent way to move energy, and it drives itself, so to speak. Which do you think is cheaper to install and maintain?
Pipes and pumps? 0r some wiring strung along a pole? And do you think the government can limitlessly tax its way into building the thermal efficiency you hold so very, very dear?
There are so many factors here you do not even begin to grasp. All you see is waste heat == BAD!
When people escaped the DDR (East Germany), specifically over the Berlin Wall - the West Germans helped them in any way possible with open arms, short of provoking war.
Now we shoot them?
No, the S. Koreans shoot them.
Why don't you ask one of them about it?
Any South Koreans here able to shed some light on it?
Carnot efficiency is limited by the lowest and the highest temperatures in a power cycle. In my nuke plant our highest temperature is around 600 deg F, our lowest temperature is around 40 deg F (ocean water). This gives a maximum theoretical efficiency of 50%, and we actually run about 36% efficient or so. We've spent millions of dollars in the past few refueling outages to increase our effeciency a percent or two- a .1% increase in effiecency translates to over $600,000 a year in revenue. The only heat we waste is the heat we cannot possibly use.
The discharge temperature of our steam turbines is around 100 deg F (into a vaccuum), and the water we use to cool that final stage is put back in the ocean at around 80 deg F. With those kind of relatively low temperatures it's hard to pipe it around efficiently to heat buildings. If it was econimical we'd do it for heating our own buildings at the very least. We don't, we use a small amount of steam diverted from power generation to heat the buildings during cold New England winters.
So yeah, power companies are very, very interested in maximizing thermal efficiency.
The latest fossil fuel plants are combined cycle plants. They burn fuel to spin a 'normal' turbine connected to a generator. The turbine exhaust is then routed through a heat exchanger to create steam, and then that steam is used to spin another turbine, or to add power to steam turbines inline with the original gas turbine.The high temperature in these systems is 1300 Deg C, and the low temperature depending on location can be 3-5 deg C.
In real applications the thermal efficiency of these Combined Cycle plants is 59%. If you want to generate heat and electricity, you can achieve thermal efficiecies as high as 85%.
It's highly ironic that power stations produce more energy as heat than they do as electricity.
No, it's not ironic, it's just the limitations of the physics involved. Basic thermodynamics.
This isn't going to happen any time soon, economically it simply isn't worth while, it's much cheaper to dig up coal or pipe oil or gas. That could change with the flick of a pen though. At the moment every working individual pays 30%-40% of their income as taxation, get rid of it and add the equivalent level of taxation to fuel sources, in particular the non green methods of generation.
Taxation doesn't change the thermodynamics involved with the low discharge temperatures, heat losses from even insulated piping to move it around, energy costs of the pumps to move said heat, and the population densities involved.
Power plants of any type aren't typically found near lots of people for various reasons. Mostly because they are industrial facilities- they're large, ugly, often noisy and some of them stink.
District heating and cooling is already used when it's feasible. College campuses and cities are your best examples. Advocating taxation to counter thermodynamics does not reflect well on your grasp of the issues.
Isn't there significant overlap from that list, and the list of nations seeking to wrest control of the internet from the US Department Of Commerce?
a few seconds of google-fu and you can check your dire predictions against school voucher programs in practice.
A few articles & discussions on the topic are linked from HERE , you can check them all out at your convienence. The site clearly advocates school choice but links to some independant research you can judge for yourself.
For your specific issue of the poor getting screwed under this system, well, this certainly applies:
More discussion follows, but here's the point: The poor have no choice in most places. Given even a few imperfect choices, they could surely do better than what they already have.
Doom,gloom and FUD are fun but that's no excuse not to do a little searching when trying to predict consequences of things that have already happened.
Honestly I don't see why everyone doesn't use New Hampshire's system.
I don't see how it could get significantly faster, simpler, or even cheaper.
1. A scantron sheet with four columns: Office, Republicans, Democrats, Other/write in.
Fill in the circle next to the guy you want to elect.
Screw up? Just get another sheet.
2. Put it in the machine at the exit. The Votes are instantly tallied and a simple to read paper ballot is right there for checking. No hanging chads. No screens out of sync. Easily Verified. And cheap- two or three machines per polling site.
What's not to love?
And it's worth remembering that the dose makes the poison.
Here's one I got from an article a while back:
No one was ever talking about dueling. To reiterate: Some UK pansy thinks it's illegal to track down someone who has wronged you and demand restitution. I say such actions are perfectly rational and the point out in many states in the US you can go even farther.
Sometime's it's pretty crystal clear that you've been wronged. You don't need an objective third party to sort the truth out, you need it set right.
I'd say tracking down the offender and giving him a chance to set things right is rational. If he can solve it himself, than it's better than clogging up the courts and relying on the police to sort out petty crimes.
Note that the OP didn't mention that he threatened the perp in anyway, and he wouldn't have to. Merely being identified is probably enough to scare such fraudsters into compliance as they have a lot more to lose than the money if the wronged party goes to the cops with a positive identification.
Cliche.
From Here, for starters.
You have to check your own state laws, but it sounds like you're from a blue state. Or the UK. You at least have the 'hot pursuit' option, which didn't apply to this particular case but surely some jurisdictions are more lenient. You know how to use google too, so do so if you want more.
The original person I was responding to seemed to be getting all squemish at the very thought of an individual doing anything to set things right when he's been wronged. It's that pathetic, passive, make-me-a-victim mentality which I mock, and the absurd and naive implication that the 'authorities' will set things right.
Isn't this bordering on demanding with menaces?
That sounds like the kind of 'let the authorities handle it' sheep mentality that the UK is so steeped in. Are you from there?
In several US states you are expressly permitted by law to use force to recover your stolen property.
YMMV
We would benefit greatly from protecting the weak and innocent from murderous aggression in Darfur.
We would not benefit materially, and probably not even politically. If you don't have either of those things, real-world concerns tend to trump moral idealism.