Also, it allows them to consider language use, accent, clothing, music and food choices, distance from bottom of car to road surface, proximity to known immigrants (illegal or otherwise), and myriad other things. This is what happens when you choose to ignore the well known standards of "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause."
Well, it leaves open considering race AND suspicious eye movements.
Do you seriously think that this section would actually prevent considering these things? It's like a judge telling the jury to "disregard" something that a lawyer said. Genie out of the bottle and all that.
The First Bank of the United States was not a central bank, other banks still issued their own currency. Hamilton probably hoped that the bank would become a central bank, but that didn't happen until 1914 with the Federal Reserve.
Why are you lumping libertarians in with conservatives on the "tough on crime" thing? Libertarians, unlike both major parties, are opposed to the imprisonment of most of those in prison in the US.
I can see lumping them together for some things, but "tough on crime" certainly isn't one of them.
But what if the doctor was advocating that cigarettes be illegal for anyone but doctors to smoke. That'd piss me off, and Thomas Friedman is very much that kind of hypocrite.
You don't need to worry about infinite humans. Population growth has been decreasing and current best estimates are the population topping out about 9 billion in 2075. That's a sustainable amount by any measure which doesn't beg the question.
If you don't use, or threaten to use force, except through law enforcement to enforce a contract, then whatever you do is A-OK.
You're making an unwarranted leap of logic. Not wanting to punish something with force is not the same thing as thinking that it is "A-OK". There are many ways to punish wrong doing that don't involve force. If the wrong doing doesn't involve force then the punishment shouldn't either. You may disagree with that, but at least try to understand it.
Once you've googled it you may want to read beyond the sensationalist headline. He was found guilty of deliberately cultivating the crop once he knew what it was and where it came from, not for the contamination of his fields. For that the court found no evidence of wilful misconduct.
Did you read the article? He wasn't "made responsible for pollen from a Monsanto product getting into his area" the court specifically said he wasn't responsible for that. What he was "made responsible" for was when he then took those plants and replanted the rest of his fields with them knowing full well what he was doing.
You can agree or disagree with IP laws about "stealing" seeds, but this case doesn't make the point you were trying to make.
Data point: Arrhenius figured out the physics of greenhouse gasses a hundred years ago.
That's not in dispute. Only a few crackpots deny that extra CO2 won't lead to any more heat capture.
What is in dispute is that ~1 degree of warming from doubled CO2 leads to as much as 6 degrees of warming from feedbacks. What's also in dispute is the nature and magnitude of the effects from that warming.
There's a lot of good science in there, but it's far from "settled".
How do you know how many plots have been abandoned because the plotters couldn't work out a reliable way past TSA screening?
Quite simple, really.
How many terrorists do you think would shrug their shoulders and go home because they were afraid of the TSA? If a terrorist was intent on taking down an airplane and were unable to then they would go after a softer target (assuming, of course, that planes are now more hardened by the TSA).
It's like installing a burglar alarm on your house. It doesn't stop a burglary, it only moves it to your neighbour. With extra security on planes we should see more terrorism elsewhere. Since we don't, it's obvious that there isn't a great deal of terrorism directed at airplanes to be thwarted.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't that apply equally to the unlicensed? Or does an unlicensed architect get a pass on any harm caused by his building?
Also, it allows them to consider language use, accent, clothing, music and food choices, distance from bottom of car to road surface, proximity to known immigrants (illegal or otherwise), and myriad other things. This is what happens when you choose to ignore the well known standards of "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause."
Well, it leaves open considering race AND suspicious eye movements.
Do you seriously think that this section would actually prevent considering these things? It's like a judge telling the jury to "disregard" something that a lawyer said. Genie out of the bottle and all that.
No, the other one.
The First Bank of the United States was not a central bank, other banks still issued their own currency. Hamilton probably hoped that the bank would become a central bank, but that didn't happen until 1914 with the Federal Reserve.
Why are you lumping libertarians in with conservatives on the "tough on crime" thing? Libertarians, unlike both major parties, are opposed to the imprisonment of most of those in prison in the US.
I can see lumping them together for some things, but "tough on crime" certainly isn't one of them.
Piece of cake, everyone knows it's 6000 years old.
It is in the developer T&C.
Every company has a monopoly if you define the market narrowly enough.
Examples?
But what if the doctor was advocating that cigarettes be illegal for anyone but doctors to smoke. That'd piss me off, and Thomas Friedman is very much that kind of hypocrite.
So infinite humans, no problem?
Yes, absolutely.
Oh, wait, you were serious? Sorry, my mistake.
You don't need to worry about infinite humans. Population growth has been decreasing and current best estimates are the population topping out about 9 billion in 2075. That's a sustainable amount by any measure which doesn't beg the question.
If you don't use, or threaten to use force, except through law enforcement to enforce a contract, then whatever you do is A-OK.
You're making an unwarranted leap of logic. Not wanting to punish something with force is not the same thing as thinking that it is "A-OK". There are many ways to punish wrong doing that don't involve force. If the wrong doing doesn't involve force then the punishment shouldn't either. You may disagree with that, but at least try to understand it.
Once you've googled it you may want to read beyond the sensationalist headline. He was found guilty of deliberately cultivating the crop once he knew what it was and where it came from, not for the contamination of his fields. For that the court found no evidence of wilful misconduct.
Sorry: did you read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser
Did you read the article? He wasn't "made responsible for pollen from a Monsanto product getting into his area" the court specifically said he wasn't responsible for that. What he was "made responsible" for was when he then took those plants and replanted the rest of his fields with them knowing full well what he was doing.
You can agree or disagree with IP laws about "stealing" seeds, but this case doesn't make the point you were trying to make.
It can and does happen though mechanisms like viruses. Do some searching for horizontal gene transfer, might help that poor imagination of yours.
This produces some pretty sketchy plants, IMO.
Sketchy in a "I have some evidence that it is bad" or in a "I'm scared of things I've seen in horror movies" kind of way?
This kind of thing happens a lot in nature, just do a search for Horizontal Gene Transfer.
So you support the use of violence to prevent other people from eating those potatoes as well. I guess that makes you a terrorist asshole as well.
Data point: Arrhenius figured out the physics of greenhouse gasses a hundred years ago.
That's not in dispute. Only a few crackpots deny that extra CO2 won't lead to any more heat capture.
What is in dispute is that ~1 degree of warming from doubled CO2 leads to as much as 6 degrees of warming from feedbacks. What's also in dispute is the nature and magnitude of the effects from that warming.
There's a lot of good science in there, but it's far from "settled".
How do you know how many plots have been abandoned because the plotters couldn't work out a reliable way past TSA screening?
Quite simple, really.
How many terrorists do you think would shrug their shoulders and go home because they were afraid of the TSA? If a terrorist was intent on taking down an airplane and were unable to then they would go after a softer target (assuming, of course, that planes are now more hardened by the TSA).
It's like installing a burglar alarm on your house. It doesn't stop a burglary, it only moves it to your neighbour. With extra security on planes we should see more terrorism elsewhere. Since we don't, it's obvious that there isn't a great deal of terrorism directed at airplanes to be thwarted.
Can someone explain why are we blowing our money on this bullshit!?
Democracy?
Are you sure you're in the right discussion thread?
He ran for office. That's all the proof of corruption I need.
Wow, you don't know the different between magnetism and irradiance. Seriously, just look at this and this.