Supposedly, the primary use of any weapon of mass destruction is deterrence. However, Hussein already used weapons of mass destruction against Kuwait. He didn't bother to make threats; he just did it. What makes you think he's going to change his tune when dealing with the US?
He used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds, I'm not certain if he used similar weaponry against Kuwait. In any event, most chemical weapons aren't properly "weapons of mass destruction" because it's actually quite difficult to kill large numbers of people/property with them. They're more properly "terror weapons" like flamethrowers and land mines. Besides, I was talking exclusively about nuclear arms.
There's also the fact that the USA has the most powerful military in the world, whereas the Kuwaitis were essentially unarmed. He'd be more reluctant to use them against the USA, but I'm certain that he would if the US tries to conquer Iraq.
Also, the deterrent effect of weapons of mass destruction is greater if the weapon is already used on some large city (such as New York City). It's basically saying "I have weapons of mass destruction, I had no problem with wiping out one of your major cities, and I will have no problem doing it again if you provoke me."
Were he to do this, it would result in immeadate nuclear retaliation by the USA (probably wiping Baghdad off the map) and would make an American invasion certain, probably with overwhelming support from the rest of the world. Even other Arab nations might provide troops. Hussien would NEVER launch a pre-emptive strike against the USA. In fact, I think it's highly unlikely that he would ever publically attack a US territory no matter what. Americans are very prickly about attacks on our territory (see Pearl Harbor and 9/11) and he simply can't whistand a sustained attack by the USA.
The point that many people seem to be missing in danheskett's post is that this is pretty close to what MOST American consumers want out of an EV. Since it's basically impossible to do this with current technology, he's saying that pursuit of EV's at this time is a wasted effort.
The fact remains that EV's, at this point in time, are vastly infriorn on a functional level to internal combustion vehicles and will remain so for some time. Our best bet in the short-term seems to be hybrid gasolice/electric vehicles and fuel cell technology on the horizon looks like it may be the long-term solution.
BTW, Somebody suggested swapping out the batteries. Unfortunately, current EV designs (such as the EV-1) require over 1000lbs of batteries for a decent range, which prevents them from being swapped quicly without heavy equipment. This is not saying that this approach is impossibe, but it has logistical problems.
And don't assume that a magic battery will appear that will solve the weight and range problems. Improved battery technology has a great many applications and such technology would be worth many billions of dollars. Hence, there are a great many people working on it, and have been for decades. Slashdot had an article a while back featuring the head of R&D over a Eveready saying that there was nothing being on the horizon.
They have lower death rates because of the difficulty (economically and legally) in obtaining them. Besides, that sounds like bullshit anyway. How do you get accurate numbers on illegal substances?
Well, there are plenty of legal projects in Europe.
Also making narcotics legal wouldn't really even cut down on distribution-related crimes. Because of their dangerous nature (and hence necessary regulation) they'll still be as incredibly expensive as prescription drugs. Also consider that there's already an established distribution infrastructure. Where do you think a crack addict is going to buy his crack? From his known dealer or through a legal avenue that costs 10 times as much?
The high price of cocaine (for example) is almost entirely due to it's illegal status. Cocaine is a hardy crop that is relatively easy to grow and process. There is no reason why a gram of cocaine should cost more than a banana. In those European nations where, say, heroin is legal it's MUCH cheaper from legal outlets than "on the street". There is every reason to believe this would be true for cocaine. And addicts have always leapt at the chance to aquire their drugs legally, look at the problems with "Needle Park" in Switzerland.
Bottom line is most people aren't smart enough to use addictive substances in a sane and non-destructive manner, and they'll pay anyone to get as much as they "need". So you're either going to fight to keep people from using them or you're going to fight the consequences of a drugged society.
Opium has been available all over the world for thousands of years and civilization did not collapse. Cocaine was legal in the USA for decades and it didn't collapse. Marijuana and opium are legal (or de facto legal) in various part of Europe and that continent seems to be doing fine. There is little reason to belive that the "consequences" of a "drugged society" are any worse than those of a "prohibition society".
Here's another way to look at it: smart people play the odds. Statistically, I'm much more likely to be negatively affected by a drug dealer's actions than I am likely to be framed by the police as a drug dealer. Like I said, these guys are scum of the earth. They lie, they steal, a disproportionately large number of them even kill. I would know - I had one break into my home.
Your personal experience is clearly clouding your judgement. Let me guess: You're a white, middle-aged, upper-middle-class, family man.
You're right in saying that you are in a demographic group that is unlikely to be framed for drug posession. However, you are not everyone. You aren't a young black or latino man. You didn't grow up in Compton or East Palo Alto. If so, you'd be singing a different tune.
And if all or even most "drug dealers" are murderers why does the number of drug convictions dwarf murder convictions and why aren't the majority of those murders drug-related? It's because most "drug dealers" don't murder people.
Let's be clear. I don't think dopers and shroom users should be locked up or punished harshly. Marijuana is likely no more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol. But, beyond that things start to get a little scarier, and it's those drugs that need to be controlled. Ultimately the user is, if nothing else, a victim. The dealers are the source of the problem. If the cost of dealing drugs is made to be sufficiently high the reward no longer seems worth it, and no one is willing to do it. No dealers - no drugs. So when I see tough, proactive treatment on drug dealers, it makes me glad.
Except the problem is that "drug dealers", or "drug kingpins" almost never go to jail. Why? Because they're rich. Rich people can afford the lawyers to keep them out of jail (this is where the ide of asset forfieture came from, if you bankrupt someone it's harder for them to put up a defense). The very largest dealers operate outside of the US where they have a huge influence on the local economy and government. Pablo Escobar is considered a hero in his home town.
The only people that go to jail are the smallest of the small-time dealers and "mules" who are simply transporting drugs. Prosecuters don't care because they want QUANTITY of convictions. I'm sure they'd like to take on "kingpins" but that's a lot harder to do, so they don't.
That's why Bush and company want to go after them; the longer they wait, the more powerful Iraq's weapons of mass destruction become. Rather than dropping some chemical weapons on a neighboring country, they might become able to drop ICBMs carrying fusion bombs on New York City, for instance.
The likeyhood of the scenario you describe is nil. The primary use of nuclear weapons is deterence, as Bush and Hussien are both well-aware. If Hussien had nuclear arms he would make it known to the US govenment and make threats that if Iraq was invaded he'd nuke Israel. Basically, Hussien wants nuclear arms for defensive purposes.
You can start with this [theantidrug.com] which explains the effects of THC on the memory and learning portions of the brain, and then move along to this [aafp.org] which tells us (among other things) that marijuana use restricts blood flow to the brain. Then, if you're still with us, check out this [nih.gov]. The fourth paragraph details lab experiments where it was found that giving THC to rats caused a loss of brain cells.
I'm not familiar with the first study, but I question it because it's a known fact that THC is metabolized in the body within 24 hours. (Drug tests work by detecting these metabolized compounds.) I don't understand how THC could cause ongoing neurological impairment given these facts. While it could be the case that WHILE UNDER THE AFFECTS of THC/marijuana learning function is imparies I'd like to see a human subjects test that proved this, and I dhoubt ths study used human subjects.
However, I AM familiar with the Vinsant study. It's methodology is terribly flawed. Basically what they did is locked some rats in an airtight cage than filled it completely with marijuana smoke and left the rats inside for hours. Upon dissection, it was found that brain damage had occured in the rats. Of course, ANY sort of smoke will cause brain damage under these conditions. A similar study in which marijuana was FED to rats showed no neurological changes.
Drugs should be regulated in proportion to their tendency to harm society. Tobacco smoke can be inhaled by non-smokers, so its use should be regulated. Alcohol impairs judgement, so its use should be regulated. Marijuana has some features of both, so its use should be regulated.
The idea that conventional "secondhand smoke" (for example, sitting in a bar with smokers) is a significant health risk is mythical. There is no credible study that supports this, just a weak collection of epidemiological studies. There is more evidence that power lines cause brain cancer. It just happens that this is a very convienient wedge issue for the anti-smoking crowd that wants to ban tobacco in the USA.
For the record, I am a nonsmoker and I fully realize the risks to ACTUAL cigarette smokers and the risks to the fetus carried by a pregnat smoker. That is not what I'm talking about.
By the same token, PCP makes people into violent supermen, so its use should be forbidden.
This is another myth. PCP increases resistance to pain dramatically (Suprise! It's a pain killer!), large doses can also induce psychotic episodes (not necessarily violent or destructive). In 99% of cases it does not turen people into violent supermen.
How come so few of them are getting shot or otherwise removed from the gene pool? Where I come from if someone was acting like that he'd be killed by the very community he was mistreating.
Because police have complete solidarity against cop killers. In most places, killing a cop is the easiest way to get the death penalty (in California killing a cop is an AUTOMATIC death penalty case). This is assuming you even make it to trial and aren't killed "resisting arrest".
But then again I don't come from a ghetto where any sense of community died a long time ago. I can see how it would be easy for the police to behave that way when there was no solidarity on the part of their victims. Divide and conquer is the name of the game, although in this case the division is a pre-existing condition.
Most communities in the USA are fairly divided. Do you know all the neighbors on YOUR block? Probably not, and if you do you're far from typical. This doesn't mean the police should have carte blanche to rape and murder.
If the police are a problem in some communities then I suggest the people of those communities band together, arm themselves, and when push comes to shove give the police a reason to think twice about terrorizing people.
This happens. They're called "riots". Remember the Rodney King riots? In fact, MOST riots in the USA are about police misconduct. What happens EVERY time? The police call in the national guard (to convienently skirt posse commitatus). It's unreasonable to expect ordinary citizens to outgun the military. And armed revolution seems a rather extreme solution to police brutality.
The real purpose of this kind of database is NOT to incriminate the not guilty, or to place random people into the database just for the hell of it. The point is to decrease the amount of time spent investigating crimes.
You're absoultely right. The goal here is to create a list of "the usual suspects" that you can pin crimes on. I'd be money that most of the people on the list are poor minorities with previous criminal records. Why? Because they're very easy to convict.
So the prisoners get paid a minimum wage job, and then get helf of it sent to the government in the form of taxes. Sounds like a lot of people I know. Besides, when you seriously think about it, what use does a prisoner have for money?
Prisoners are paid considerably less than minimum wage, somewhere between $0.05 and $1.00 an hour (before taxes). This pittance is mainly to avoid accusations of outright slavery.
nor do I think that, but no where have you shown me evidence of these people being made into slaves. They've simply been reduced to part of the minimum wage workforce.
Slavery is when you have no choice wether or not to work. US prisoners have very little choice. In the Federal prison system, you either work or you get solitary confinment. In the Californian system you either work or your "privliges" (seeing your family, using the telephone, contacting your lawyer, etc.) are taken away. In Texas prisons it's basically work or die, because guards can deny food and water to uncooperative prisoners.
But people in prison are not there to be killed, as most of America seems to be to timid to actualy kill someone (i.e. 2 life sentences + 100years without possibility of parole? Just kill the damn bastard and free up some resources). Nor are they there to be reformed, that's what psychologists and rehab centers are for. Prison is punishment for doing wrong, in the same way your parents spanked you with a wooden spoon (which by the way is not child abuse) and in the same way they grounded you. Prison is grounding for adults. They shouldn't like it.
Prisons are a relatively novel concept invented by the Puritians. Before them, punishment for crimes was typically immeadate corporal punishment (torture). Whippings, beatings, stocks, etc. The idea of prisons was that a prisoner locked ALONE in cell, with nothing but a Bible and God to keep him company would eventually repent his crimes and reform. This was perfectly sensible to the Puritians who belived people commited crimes because they weren't pious enough.
The modern rationale for prisons is neither punishment (formally) or reform. It's to "protect the public". The logic is that the prisoners have commited crimes, therefore they are likely to commit crimes again, therefore locking them up prevents them from commiting crimes. Nevermind that this makes no sense.
But we don't do that. We provide welfare and unlimited funding for people who are poor, and take away a reason to try to get a job.
It is near-impossible for a simgle man or woman in the USA to get actual welfare. Unemployment insurnce is a benefit that YOU PAID for while you worked, just like any other kind of insurance. You usually get less out of it than you pay in. Of course, if you never had a job to begin with you can't get unemployment.
No it isn't. Who would have been killed by a friggin' box-cutter? Damn! A word of advice to you... 'they' are ALWAYS lying when 'they'say they have a bomb. That's just a general fact of life. Claims of having a bomb (anywhere, but especially in airplanes) are ALWAYS lies.
Tell that to the people on Pan/Am flight 103. Or that guy who tried to set fire to his shoes. Clearly it was credibe THEN and remains credible NOW that terrorists are able to sneak explosives capable of destroying the aircraft on board. I'm sure I could come up with numerous other examples.
Besides. My original point was that, if someone wishes to take control of the cockpit, they obviously are not typical hijackers, and DO want to do you harm. Similar events have happened before.
EVERY hijacking necessarily involves taking over the cockpit, and by definiton hijackers want to "do harm" because hijacking is itself a form of harm. And successfull hijacking is based on the fact that the hijackers are willing to kill the passengers and/or destroy the plane. While replacing the pilots might have been somewhat unusual, it's difficult to belive that the passengers would have known that this detail meant that the hijackers indended to fly the plane into a large public building. It's entirely possible that all of the hijackers may not have known the intentions before impact.
You may be perfectly right in saying that removal of the pilots always or almost always leads to the death of the passengers. But it is unreasonable to think that the passengers on the 9/11 flights would have had that information (clearly they didn't, which illustrates my point).
This is irrelevant to the present, because NOW all passengers will assume (rightly or wrongly) that ALL hijackers wish to fly the plane into large public buildings and would storm the cockpit, regardless of arms and threats by the hijackers.
You really didn't pay too much attention did you? There is no example of a capitalistic society nor is there an example of a socialistic society.
In an idealized sense you are correct. There has never been a "perfect" capitalist or a socialist society, and there never will be. However there have been societies that are/were substantially capitalist and socialist and it is those societies that I am addressing.
Of course, you completely ignored my point about a lack of successful implementations of socialism.
Your comments thsocialism/communism (different theories btw) can't compete in a free market supports my point - we haven't seen any real attempt at making socialism work. The free market is a capitalistic concept - of course socialism won't succeed in capitalism.
Communism is an implementation of socialism.
Notice that I put "free market" in quotes. I was speaking of the "marketplace of ideas". That why it has always been imposed on people throguh force. Most people realize that it won't work pretty quickly. However I was reffering to economic competition with other nations, read my example.
Besides this, my other major point was that you don't have to go to extremes. Free market capitalism does *not* work better than anything yet discovered otherwise it would likely be in use - it is not. In most western societies there is a combination of socialism and capitalism integrated into a unified theory that has a free market and also seeks to have a minimum standard of living for all (welfare systems theoretically ensure this).
Free market capitalism *does* work better than any other system. Historically, the most successful nations in history have all engeged in free trade (look into it). Modern examples include the United States, Hong Kong, South Korea, etc. As these nations, and I would argue ANY nation, adopt free markets rather their protectionism their economy improves, albeit not instantly.
It's worth noting that I tend to use very broad denitions of capitalism, dictionary defintions as opposed to precise economic defintions, so I consider any sort of meaningfult trade to be capitalism. Likewise I tend to define socialism as a system whereby wealth, resources, etc. are "assigned" by The State (in whatever form tht state takes) not by trade or exchange of any sort. The U.S.S.R falls into my defintion because even though people "bought" goods with "money", there was no meaningful trade.
As I said... It is not necessary to know that you are going to be killed. Clearly, it is easy to do what is right, when you know that doing otherwise will get you killed... There exists one smoldering example of that very situation. I would say, even if everyone on the plane suspected that they were going to die, they still wouldn't have done anything. People enjoy escaping into their own head, pretending that everything will be okay, and therefore, doing nothing.
This isn't the Marines. I don't expect most people to sacrifice thier lives to no purpose, and it's reasonable to assume that attacking hijackers on a plane in mid-flight would result in your death and very likely the deaths of everyone on board (especially if they weren't lying about the bomb). Hijackings are extermely dangerous for everyone involved, that's why only crazed zealots undertake such missions. And remember that the flight crew didn't try anythign either. I think the people on the planes acted reasonably given the situation, and it doesn't take a dim view of humanity to reach that conclusion.
listen to yourself man! That was the exact sentiment before this happened. Falling into the same stupifying contentment is the worst thing you could do.
What is naive to believe it that security really does any good. I work in the security industry, and most of it is completely illusury. There is no way we can prevent truly motivated individuals from commiting terrorist acts in the United States, though we could substantially reduce the risk of attacks by reshaping our nation into a "security" model (think Stalin) and/or changing our foreign policy towards Muslim nations (Muslim terrorists are the most likely at this point).
The reality is that if we throw impregnable security around commercial airliners terrorists will just find another avenue of attack. You can't stop really motivated people from attacking, ask the Israelis.
I say, the FAA should have their asses sued for not taking even the most rudimentary precautions against takeovers. Sky marshals, pilot training, cockpit doors, any one of which would have stopped this. You will notice that 'increased baggage checks' or 'more-strict limitations on carry-on items' are not on that list.
Sky marshals and cockpit doors are a good idea, and not because of terrorism. These measures would also be effective against "air rage", and crazies trying to break into the cockpit both of which have happened FAR more often than terrorist attacks and are CERTAIN to happen again. In the near future even.
If you are a pilot, and a hijacker is attempting to take over control of the plane (removing the pilots from the cockpit) you must know that it is NOT a routine hijacking. At that point, it's safe to say something needs to be done.
Though we certainly don't have complete information, it is now widely belived that the terrorists claimed that it was a hijacking and that in addition to the box-cutters claimed they had bombs that they would detonate if they were attacked.
I don't believe it is reasonable to assume that the pilots and passengers would "figure out" that they intended to use the aircraft as bombs. Clearly they did not.
One positive side-affect of 9/11 is that it is unlikely that any terrorist groups will attempt hijackings of aircraft in the USA knowing that the passengers would attack them (assuming ther terrorists would use the aircfarf as a flying bomb). A repeat of 9/11 is highly unlikely for this reaso. It's much more likely terrorists would use cargo aircraft or private aircraft for such attacks.
Well, not really. Find me an example of a communistic society that was not run by a dictator and wasn't in the middle of a war and I might believe that statement. The fact is however, that communism hasn't really been given a fair trial so we just don't know whether or not it would work.
I think the fact that despite the fact that communism has been around for over a century nobody can point to even a marginally sucessful, long term (more than a few years), small scale implementation speaks volumes for it's efficacy in the Real World. All attempts at "communism" have resulted in failure/famine.
Radical cultural changes have been attempted to make communism "work" (China, Cambodia, etc.) and these attempts failed. Communism is a failed economic system.
Having said that, there is no way communism would work in the USA in any forseeable timeframe because the culture is so capitalistic and communism (and capitalism) is a way of life not just an economic system.
The reality is that socialism/communism can't compete in a "free market" with capitalism. If you have a socialist country and a capitalist country would roughly equal resources and population the capitalist country will ALWAYS economically dominate in the long term because, fundamentally, capitalism is more efficient.
Ahhh, politics can be so complex at times... Stop thinking that communism or capitalism is the be all and end all of everything - there are other ways economics can work.
Sure there are other ways. Free market capitalism just happens to work better than anythign yet discovered. It's likely that in the future better economic systems will be developed. Communism, socialism, anarcho-socialism, etc. aren't among them.
Share holders only benefit if the company chooses to let them.
If the company "chooses" NOT to let them, then the shareholders replace the board and fire the management.
The shareholders run the company: not the managers, not the directors.... the shareholders.
While what you're saying is true in an absolute sense, in practice there a great deal of trust in the officers and board is required because the shareholders don't have complete access to financial and other data within the companies. This is clearly seen as a problem, it's why we have "independent" audits. Boards and officers manipulate the shareholders/stock by manipulating the data. This is exactly what happended at Worldcom, Enron, etc.
One solution is a requirement for ACCURATE disclosure of ALL financial data to shareholders (which effectively means public disclosure). This is what the recently-passed lawas are all about. Will they do any good? Probably not given the spotty enforcement by the SEC. Of course, spotty enforcement is a problem with ALL white collar crimes.
Sigh, you are Idiot, right? Terrorism has nothing to do with what "side" you are on. That's the typical moral relativist crap that people use to avoid making moral judgements that might mean they'd have to commit to taking a side.
Let me repeat this for the billionth time:
TERRORISTS INTENTIONALLY ATTACK CIVILIAN TARGETS TO ADVANCE A POLITICAL AGENDA.
Americans weren't targeting civilians on purpose in Afghanistan. If they were, a few nukes would have solved any problem with bin Laden real quick, and the collateral damage wouldn't have mattered. But since it DOES matter, the US has been doing things the hard way.
And I'll repeat this for the billionth time:
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY INTENTIONALLY ATTACK CIVILIAN TARGETS TO ADVANCE A POLITICAL AGENDA.
Examples are too numerous to mention but include knocking out power plants, industrial facilities of all kinds, hospitals, tv and radio stations, etc. These were all targets attacked in Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, etc. The politcal purposes were slightly different each time, but the overall message was the same "Do what we say, or else!"
The US military doesn't engage in wholesale slaughter of civilians not because it wouldn't be effective (killing all the Iraqis would definitely destroy Saddam Hussien's ability to cause trouble in the region) but because it would be very bad publicity and would anger the US's allies. Think what would happen if we nuked Iraq? The Egyptians, Saudis, etc. might be our allies but if we started slaughtering Arabs en mass, ANY Arabs, they would turn on us ultra-fast.
The US might be powerful, but it's power isn't infinite. The US can't fight the whole world, and part of that means that the US has to at least try to appear to be "the good guys" in every conflict, thay way they can act with international support, or at least, indifference. The fact that the US has been doing a great job at propoganda lately helps (the masterful way they controlled the press in Afghanistan, for example).
For the nasty stuff (mass murder, torture, etc.), the US prefers to use proxies so they don't suffer the direct PR fallout. In the recent Afghan conflict, most of the serious "ground work" was/is done by the "Northern Alliance" who is utterly ruthless at killing, torturing, etc. their enemies and their families. But you don't here much about this on CNN.
Terrorism = War
And in any modern war it's bloody, and messy, and lots of civilians get hurt.
It's worth noting that the "sabbatical" of Robbie Bach is significant because he was the executive that swore up and down that the X-Box was a "gaming console ONLY" and not a "digital convergence box" as many people assumed during X-Box development.
It's hardly surprising now trhat the X-Box is going down in flames that they'd switch strategies to "digital convergence box". But I don't think it's a strategy that will succeed. The "high-end" customers that would be interested in such a product already have a PS2 and a Tivo. Why would they want the all in one product? Now if they could somehow made a combo X-Box/Ultimate TV for less that $250, they would really have something. But they don't and they can't.
As I've said before... unless broadband gaming takes off in a major way in the near future (broadband adoption rates have been slowing), X-Box is doomed.
This right here is a major reason I'm not involved in discussion as much as I used to be. The scattering of web boards (which have decent signal-to-noise) is very difficult to keep handle on. There are very few, id any, large gneneral discussion web bords with lots of topics and with little, if any spam.
USENet used to be the solution, but it's turned into a warez and porn distribution system and it has MASSIVE spam problems.
About the only thing that came close was eGroups, and Yahoo! is busy destroying that.
Broadband won't die because the "killer app" for broadband isn't bandwith intensive websites, it's piracy. P2P apps, MP3 downloads, warez, etc. Read between the lines of what AOL is saying, they've basically admitted this.
McDonald's didn't warn anyone because they assume it was obvious that you served coffee at near boiling-hot temperatures, especially though a drive through window where the customer (presumably) would be driving some distance with the coffee. This would allow the customer to be able to drink hot coffee for some length of time.
Look further into the lawsuit. Stella Liebeck barely saw a dime of the ultimate settlement. All that happend as the result of the lawsuit is that some lawyers got $100,000s of money and that you can't get hot beverages anymore because they might theoretically scald someone if the waitress pours it on you or you spill it on yourself.
Most product liability lawsuits are scams that simply make lawyers rich.
Slashdot ate my more lengthy reply, so I'll have to briefly summarize:
How much ammunition is sold every year in the USA? Of those millions of rounds, how many eny up in a human body? 0.01%? Less? Clearly guns are used for other purposes that killing. The overwhelming majority of those rounds ended up in targets, tin cans, and animals.
Police have as many gun accidents as "average citizens". For the most part, they aren't well-trained. Look into it.
You can't go to a compound in Montana and hide with a pile of guns. The feds will come you your house to arrest you. Ask the Branch Davidians.
Guns are tools, and like any other tool there is a non-zero risk of accidental injury associated with using them. Some tools are more dangerous than other (table saws are more dangerous than Nerf toys), but this doesn't mean we should arbitrarily ban them. One example that comes to mind is rat poison, toxic chemicals that have no other purpose than to kill animals (including humans). Yet you can but it at any grocery store. Why? Because the risk is managable. The same way the risk is manageable for firearms and automobiles.
My understanding about the deformed W thing has to do with international markets (France, Germany, etc.) where ANY depiction of the swastika or "Nazi imagery" is illegal (special exemptions are made for Holocaust memorials, etc.) You can't even find the swastika in history textbooks in Germany.
The big long-term problem ReplayTV has in providing the service is the cost of all the local phone numbers for providing dial-up access to the devices. The "tv guide" costs are next to nothing (except the fees they pay, which they would have to provide for all units anyway).
This is one of the reasons they're moving to "broadband" recorders. It's something the typical (high-end, likely to have Internet broadband) PVR customer has been asking for, and it's actually cheaper for them to provide long-term (is ethernet any more expensive than a modem?).
As an "older" ReplayTV owner, one of the things I'm worried about is them dropping the local phone numbers.
Interesting theory you've got there. I fail to see how there is any plausible justification for giving people the right not to say things that might incriminate themselves. Either you did something wrong or you didn't, and the court's job is to establish which it is as fairly as possible. You've already got innocent until proven guilty (and that's how I'd want it), but then you load the dice completely by letting people keep quiet rather than say something incriminating that might... well... be the truth.
This doctrine is based on police corruption and deception. Ex, the police SAY that Bob says that he commited the crime and is guilty, but Bob denies it later. In the US, this would be a non-issue because Bob can't testify against himself therefore it's irrelavent what he might have said to the cops.
It's a simple fact that false confessions are the #1 abused tool by the state to convict innocent people. In Japan and China (and the UK?) they routinely coerce suspects into making false statements, or claim that they did. This used to be common in the USA as well, but a number of judicial decisions have curtailed the practice.
Hey, over here in the UK, if you refuse to give a breath sample when you get busted after a road accident, the court is allowed to read into that that you're being dodgy, and you can be done for it appropriately. What does the US law say on that?
You simply can't refuse to provide a breath sample. You can be held indefinitely if you refuse to submit a breath or blood sample. I believe that it's not working through the courts as to whether or not the state can use force to extract a blood sample.
The thing I never got is how you can possibly find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt (is that the legalese you use, too?) if it takes months at a time for each side to present their evidence. Surely, if it takes that long to present evidence, there must be reasonable doubt. Conversely, when you've been found guilty by a court, a higher court, a third high court, and another one after that, how many more appeals do you really need? If you've been found guilty that often, there's not much room for doubt left.
In practice, such cases are extremely rare. Perhaps 1 in 1,000,000. Such cases only make it through the higher courts BECAUSE there are serious issues that might apply to many other criminal cases. For example, Miranda led to "the right to remain silent" during questioning. Again, in practice, very few of thse cases end up as a win for the defendant.
Slashdot Mirror
Supposedly, the primary use of any weapon of mass destruction is deterrence. However, Hussein already used weapons of mass destruction against Kuwait. He didn't bother to make threats; he just did it. What makes you think he's going to change his tune when dealing with the US?
He used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds, I'm not certain if he used similar weaponry against Kuwait. In any event, most chemical weapons aren't properly "weapons of mass destruction" because it's actually quite difficult to kill large numbers of people/property with them. They're more properly "terror weapons" like flamethrowers and land mines. Besides, I was talking exclusively about nuclear arms.
There's also the fact that the USA has the most powerful military in the world, whereas the Kuwaitis were essentially unarmed. He'd be more reluctant to use them against the USA, but I'm certain that he would if the US tries to conquer Iraq.
Also, the deterrent effect of weapons of mass destruction is greater if the weapon is already used on some large city (such as New York City). It's basically saying "I have weapons of mass destruction, I had no problem with wiping out one of your major cities, and I will have no problem doing it again if you provoke me."
Were he to do this, it would result in immeadate nuclear retaliation by the USA (probably wiping Baghdad off the map) and would make an American invasion certain, probably with overwhelming support from the rest of the world. Even other Arab nations might provide troops. Hussien would NEVER launch a pre-emptive strike against the USA. In fact, I think it's highly unlikely that he would ever publically attack a US territory no matter what. Americans are very prickly about attacks on our territory (see Pearl Harbor and 9/11) and he simply can't whistand a sustained attack by the USA.
The point that many people seem to be missing in danheskett's post is that this is pretty close to what MOST American consumers want out of an EV. Since it's basically impossible to do this with current technology, he's saying that pursuit of EV's at this time is a wasted effort.
The fact remains that EV's, at this point in time, are vastly infriorn on a functional level to internal combustion vehicles and will remain so for some time. Our best bet in the short-term seems to be hybrid gasolice/electric vehicles and fuel cell technology on the horizon looks like it may be the long-term solution.
BTW, Somebody suggested swapping out the batteries. Unfortunately, current EV designs (such as the EV-1) require over 1000lbs of batteries for a decent range, which prevents them from being swapped quicly without heavy equipment. This is not saying that this approach is impossibe, but it has logistical problems.
And don't assume that a magic battery will appear that will solve the weight and range problems. Improved battery technology has a great many applications and such technology would be worth many billions of dollars. Hence, there are a great many people working on it, and have been for decades. Slashdot had an article a while back featuring the head of R&D over a Eveready saying that there was nothing being on the horizon.
They have lower death rates because of the difficulty (economically and legally) in obtaining them. Besides, that sounds like bullshit anyway. How do you get accurate numbers on illegal substances?
Well, there are plenty of legal projects in Europe.
Also making narcotics legal wouldn't really even cut down on distribution-related crimes. Because of their dangerous nature (and hence necessary regulation) they'll still be as incredibly expensive as prescription drugs. Also consider that there's already an established distribution infrastructure. Where do you think a crack addict is going to buy his crack? From his known dealer or through a legal avenue that costs 10 times as much?
The high price of cocaine (for example) is almost entirely due to it's illegal status. Cocaine is a hardy crop that is relatively easy to grow and process. There is no reason why a gram of cocaine should cost more than a banana. In those European nations where, say, heroin is legal it's MUCH cheaper from legal outlets than "on the street". There is every reason to believe this would be true for cocaine. And addicts have always leapt at the chance to aquire their drugs legally, look at the problems with "Needle Park" in Switzerland.
Bottom line is most people aren't smart enough to use addictive substances in a sane and non-destructive manner, and they'll pay anyone to get as much as they "need". So you're either going to fight to keep people from using them or you're going to fight the consequences of a drugged society.
Opium has been available all over the world for thousands of years and civilization did not collapse. Cocaine was legal in the USA for decades and it didn't collapse. Marijuana and opium are legal (or de facto legal) in various part of Europe and that continent seems to be doing fine. There is little reason to belive that the "consequences" of a "drugged society" are any worse than those of a "prohibition society".
Here's another way to look at it: smart people play the odds. Statistically, I'm much more likely to be negatively affected by a drug dealer's actions than I am likely to be framed by the police as a drug dealer. Like I said, these guys are scum of the earth. They lie, they steal, a disproportionately large number of them even kill. I would know - I had one break into my home.
Your personal experience is clearly clouding your judgement. Let me guess: You're a white, middle-aged, upper-middle-class, family man.
You're right in saying that you are in a demographic group that is unlikely to be framed for drug posession. However, you are not everyone. You aren't a young black or latino man. You didn't grow up in Compton or East Palo Alto. If so, you'd be singing a different tune.
And if all or even most "drug dealers" are murderers why does the number of drug convictions dwarf murder convictions and why aren't the majority of those murders drug-related? It's because most "drug dealers" don't murder people.
Let's be clear. I don't think dopers and shroom users should be locked up or punished harshly. Marijuana is likely no more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol. But, beyond that things start to get a little scarier, and it's those drugs that need to be controlled. Ultimately the user is, if nothing else, a victim. The dealers are the source of the problem. If the cost of dealing drugs is made to be sufficiently high the reward no longer seems worth it, and no one is willing to do it. No dealers - no drugs. So when I see tough, proactive treatment on drug dealers, it makes me glad.
Except the problem is that "drug dealers", or "drug kingpins" almost never go to jail. Why? Because they're rich. Rich people can afford the lawyers to keep them out of jail (this is where the ide of asset forfieture came from, if you bankrupt someone it's harder for them to put up a defense). The very largest dealers operate outside of the US where they have a huge influence on the local economy and government. Pablo Escobar is considered a hero in his home town.
The only people that go to jail are the smallest of the small-time dealers and "mules" who are simply transporting drugs. Prosecuters don't care because they want QUANTITY of convictions. I'm sure they'd like to take on "kingpins" but that's a lot harder to do, so they don't.
That's why Bush and company want to go after them; the longer they wait, the more powerful Iraq's weapons of mass destruction become. Rather than dropping some chemical weapons on a neighboring country, they might become able to drop ICBMs carrying fusion bombs on New York City, for instance.
The likeyhood of the scenario you describe is nil. The primary use of nuclear weapons is deterence, as Bush and Hussien are both well-aware. If Hussien had nuclear arms he would make it known to the US govenment and make threats that if Iraq was invaded he'd nuke Israel. Basically, Hussien wants nuclear arms for defensive purposes.
You can start with this [theantidrug.com] which explains the effects of THC on the memory and learning portions of the brain, and then move along to this [aafp.org] which tells us (among other things) that marijuana use restricts blood flow to the brain. Then, if you're still with us, check out this [nih.gov]. The fourth paragraph details lab experiments where it was found that giving THC to rats caused a loss of brain cells.
I'm not familiar with the first study, but I question it because it's a known fact that THC is metabolized in the body within 24 hours. (Drug tests work by detecting these metabolized compounds.) I don't understand how THC could cause ongoing neurological impairment given these facts. While it could be the case that WHILE UNDER THE AFFECTS of THC/marijuana learning function is imparies I'd like to see a human subjects test that proved this, and I dhoubt ths study used human subjects.
However, I AM familiar with the Vinsant study. It's methodology is terribly flawed. Basically what they did is locked some rats in an airtight cage than filled it completely with marijuana smoke and left the rats inside for hours. Upon dissection, it was found that brain damage had occured in the rats. Of course, ANY sort of smoke will cause brain damage under these conditions. A similar study in which marijuana was FED to rats showed no neurological changes.
Drugs should be regulated in proportion to their tendency to harm society. Tobacco smoke can be inhaled by non-smokers, so its use should be regulated. Alcohol impairs judgement, so its use should be regulated. Marijuana has some features of both, so its use should be regulated.
The idea that conventional "secondhand smoke" (for example, sitting in a bar with smokers) is a significant health risk is mythical. There is no credible study that supports this, just a weak collection of epidemiological studies. There is more evidence that power lines cause brain cancer. It just happens that this is a very convienient wedge issue for the anti-smoking crowd that wants to ban tobacco in the USA.
For the record, I am a nonsmoker and I fully realize the risks to ACTUAL cigarette smokers and the risks to the fetus carried by a pregnat smoker. That is not what I'm talking about.
By the same token, PCP makes people into violent supermen, so its use should be forbidden.
This is another myth. PCP increases resistance to pain dramatically (Suprise! It's a pain killer!), large doses can also induce psychotic episodes (not necessarily violent or destructive). In 99% of cases it does not turen people into violent supermen.
How come so few of them are getting shot or otherwise removed from the gene pool? Where I come from if someone was acting like that he'd be killed by the very community he was mistreating.
Because police have complete solidarity against cop killers. In most places, killing a cop is the easiest way to get the death penalty (in California killing a cop is an AUTOMATIC death penalty case). This is assuming you even make it to trial and aren't killed "resisting arrest".
But then again I don't come from a ghetto where any sense of community died a long time ago. I can see how it would be easy for the police to behave that way when there was no solidarity on the part of their victims. Divide and conquer is the name of the game, although in this case the division is a pre-existing condition.
Most communities in the USA are fairly divided. Do you know all the neighbors on YOUR block? Probably not, and if you do you're far from typical. This doesn't mean the police should have carte blanche to rape and murder.
If the police are a problem in some communities then I suggest the people of those communities band together, arm themselves, and when push comes to shove give the police a reason to think twice about terrorizing people.
This happens. They're called "riots". Remember the Rodney King riots? In fact, MOST riots in the USA are about police misconduct. What happens EVERY time? The police call in the national guard (to convienently skirt posse commitatus). It's unreasonable to expect ordinary citizens to outgun the military. And armed revolution seems a rather extreme solution to police brutality.
The real purpose of this kind of database is NOT to incriminate the not guilty, or to place random people into the database just for the hell of it. The point is to decrease the amount of time spent investigating crimes.
You're absoultely right. The goal here is to create a list of "the usual suspects" that you can pin crimes on. I'd be money that most of the people on the list are poor minorities with previous criminal records. Why? Because they're very easy to convict.
So the prisoners get paid a minimum wage job, and then get helf of it sent to the government in the form of taxes. Sounds like a lot of people I know. Besides, when you seriously think about it, what use does a prisoner have for money?
Prisoners are paid considerably less than minimum wage, somewhere between $0.05 and $1.00 an hour (before taxes). This pittance is mainly to avoid accusations of outright slavery.
nor do I think that, but no where have you shown me evidence of these people being made into slaves. They've simply been reduced to part of the minimum wage workforce.
Slavery is when you have no choice wether or not to work. US prisoners have very little choice. In the Federal prison system, you either work or you get solitary confinment. In the Californian system you either work or your "privliges" (seeing your family, using the telephone, contacting your lawyer, etc.) are taken away. In Texas prisons it's basically work or die, because guards can deny food and water to uncooperative prisoners.
But people in prison are not there to be killed, as most of America seems to be to timid to actualy kill someone (i.e. 2 life sentences + 100years without possibility of parole? Just kill the damn bastard and free up some resources). Nor are they there to be reformed, that's what psychologists and rehab centers are for. Prison is punishment for doing wrong, in the same way your parents spanked you with a wooden spoon (which by the way is not child abuse) and in the same way they grounded you. Prison is grounding for adults. They shouldn't like it.
Prisons are a relatively novel concept invented by the Puritians. Before them, punishment for crimes was typically immeadate corporal punishment (torture). Whippings, beatings, stocks, etc. The idea of prisons was that a prisoner locked ALONE in cell, with nothing but a Bible and God to keep him company would eventually repent his crimes and reform. This was perfectly sensible to the Puritians who belived people commited crimes because they weren't pious enough.
The modern rationale for prisons is neither punishment (formally) or reform. It's to "protect the public". The logic is that the prisoners have commited crimes, therefore they are likely to commit crimes again, therefore locking them up prevents them from commiting crimes. Nevermind that this makes no sense.
But we don't do that. We provide welfare and unlimited funding for people who are poor, and take away a reason to try to get a job.
It is near-impossible for a simgle man or woman in the USA to get actual welfare. Unemployment insurnce is a benefit that YOU PAID for while you worked, just like any other kind of insurance. You usually get less out of it than you pay in. Of course, if you never had a job to begin with you can't get unemployment.
No it isn't. Who would have been killed by a friggin' box-cutter? Damn! A word of advice to you... 'they' are ALWAYS lying when 'they'say they have a bomb. That's just a general fact of life. Claims of having a bomb (anywhere, but especially in airplanes) are ALWAYS lies.
Tell that to the people on Pan/Am flight 103. Or that guy who tried to set fire to his shoes. Clearly it was credibe THEN and remains credible NOW that terrorists are able to sneak explosives capable of destroying the aircraft on board. I'm sure I could come up with numerous other examples.
Besides. My original point was that, if someone wishes to take control of the cockpit, they obviously are not typical hijackers, and DO want to do you harm. Similar events have happened before.
EVERY hijacking necessarily involves taking over the cockpit, and by definiton hijackers want to "do harm" because hijacking is itself a form of harm. And successfull hijacking is based on the fact that the hijackers are willing to kill the passengers and/or destroy the plane. While replacing the pilots might have been somewhat unusual, it's difficult to belive that the passengers would have known that this detail meant that the hijackers indended to fly the plane into a large public building. It's entirely possible that all of the hijackers may not have known the intentions before impact.
You may be perfectly right in saying that removal of the pilots always or almost always leads to the death of the passengers. But it is unreasonable to think that the passengers on the 9/11 flights would have had that information (clearly they didn't, which illustrates my point).
This is irrelevant to the present, because NOW all passengers will assume (rightly or wrongly) that ALL hijackers wish to fly the plane into large public buildings and would storm the cockpit, regardless of arms and threats by the hijackers.
You really didn't pay too much attention did you? There is no example of a capitalistic society nor is there an example of a socialistic society.
In an idealized sense you are correct. There has never been a "perfect" capitalist or a socialist society, and there never will be. However there have been societies that are/were substantially capitalist and socialist and it is those societies that I am addressing.
Of course, you completely ignored my point about a lack of successful implementations of socialism.
Your comments thsocialism/communism (different theories btw) can't compete in a free market supports my point - we haven't seen any real attempt at making socialism work. The free market is a capitalistic concept - of course socialism won't succeed in capitalism.
Communism is an implementation of socialism.
Notice that I put "free market" in quotes. I was speaking of the "marketplace of ideas". That why it has always been imposed on people throguh force. Most people realize that it won't work pretty quickly. However I was reffering to economic competition with other nations, read my example.
Besides this, my other major point was that you don't have to go to extremes. Free market capitalism does *not* work better than anything yet discovered otherwise it would likely be in use - it is not. In most western societies there is a combination of socialism and capitalism integrated into a unified theory that has a free market and also seeks to have a minimum standard of living for all (welfare systems theoretically ensure this).
Free market capitalism *does* work better than any other system. Historically, the most successful nations in history have all engeged in free trade (look into it). Modern examples include the United States, Hong Kong, South Korea, etc. As these nations, and I would argue ANY nation, adopt free markets rather their protectionism their economy improves, albeit not instantly.
It's worth noting that I tend to use very broad denitions of capitalism, dictionary defintions as opposed to precise economic defintions, so I consider any sort of meaningfult trade to be capitalism. Likewise I tend to define socialism as a system whereby wealth, resources, etc. are "assigned" by The State (in whatever form tht state takes) not by trade or exchange of any sort. The U.S.S.R falls into my defintion because even though people "bought" goods with "money", there was no meaningful trade.
As I said... It is not necessary to know that you are going to be killed. Clearly, it is easy to do what is right, when you know that doing otherwise will get you killed... There exists one smoldering example of that very situation. I would say, even if everyone on the plane suspected that they were going to die, they still wouldn't have done anything. People enjoy escaping into their own head, pretending that everything will be okay, and therefore, doing nothing.
This isn't the Marines. I don't expect most people to sacrifice thier lives to no purpose, and it's reasonable to assume that attacking hijackers on a plane in mid-flight would result in your death and very likely the deaths of everyone on board (especially if they weren't lying about the bomb). Hijackings are extermely dangerous for everyone involved, that's why only crazed zealots undertake such missions. And remember that the flight crew didn't try anythign either. I think the people on the planes acted reasonably given the situation, and it doesn't take a dim view of humanity to reach that conclusion.
listen to yourself man! That was the exact sentiment before this happened. Falling into the same stupifying contentment is the worst thing you could do.
What is naive to believe it that security really does any good. I work in the security industry, and most of it is completely illusury. There is no way we can prevent truly motivated individuals from commiting terrorist acts in the United States, though we could substantially reduce the risk of attacks by reshaping our nation into a "security" model (think Stalin) and/or changing our foreign policy towards Muslim nations (Muslim terrorists are the most likely at this point).
The reality is that if we throw impregnable security around commercial airliners terrorists will just find another avenue of attack. You can't stop really motivated people from attacking, ask the Israelis.
I say, the FAA should have their asses sued for not taking even the most rudimentary precautions against takeovers. Sky marshals, pilot training, cockpit doors, any one of which would have stopped this. You will notice that 'increased baggage checks' or 'more-strict limitations on carry-on items' are not on that list.
Sky marshals and cockpit doors are a good idea, and not because of terrorism. These measures would also be effective against "air rage", and crazies trying to break into the cockpit both of which have happened FAR more often than terrorist attacks and are CERTAIN to happen again. In the near future even.
If you are a pilot, and a hijacker is attempting to take over control of the plane (removing the pilots from the cockpit) you must know that it is NOT a routine hijacking. At that point, it's safe to say something needs to be done.
Though we certainly don't have complete information, it is now widely belived that the terrorists claimed that it was a hijacking and that in addition to the box-cutters claimed they had bombs that they would detonate if they were attacked.
I don't believe it is reasonable to assume that the pilots and passengers would "figure out" that they intended to use the aircraft as bombs. Clearly they did not.
One positive side-affect of 9/11 is that it is unlikely that any terrorist groups will attempt hijackings of aircraft in the USA knowing that the passengers would attack them (assuming ther terrorists would use the aircfarf as a flying bomb). A repeat of 9/11 is highly unlikely for this reaso. It's much more likely terrorists would use cargo aircraft or private aircraft for such attacks.
Well, not really. Find me an example of a communistic society that was not run by a dictator and wasn't in the middle of a war and I might believe that statement. The fact is however, that communism hasn't really been given a fair trial so we just don't know whether or not it would work.
I think the fact that despite the fact that communism has been around for over a century nobody can point to even a marginally sucessful, long term (more than a few years), small scale implementation speaks volumes for it's efficacy in the Real World. All attempts at "communism" have resulted in failure/famine.
Radical cultural changes have been attempted to make communism "work" (China, Cambodia, etc.) and these attempts failed. Communism is a failed economic system.
Having said that, there is no way communism would work in the USA in any forseeable timeframe because the culture is so capitalistic and communism (and capitalism) is a way of life not just an economic system.
The reality is that socialism/communism can't compete in a "free market" with capitalism. If you have a socialist country and a capitalist country would roughly equal resources and population the capitalist country will ALWAYS economically dominate in the long term because, fundamentally, capitalism is more efficient.
Ahhh, politics can be so complex at times... Stop thinking that communism or capitalism is the be all and end all of everything - there are other ways economics can work.
Sure there are other ways. Free market capitalism just happens to work better than anythign yet discovered. It's likely that in the future better economic systems will be developed. Communism, socialism, anarcho-socialism, etc. aren't among them.
Share holders only benefit if the company chooses to let them.
If the company "chooses" NOT to let them, then the shareholders replace the board and fire the management.
The shareholders run the company: not the managers, not the directors.... the shareholders.
While what you're saying is true in an absolute sense, in practice there a great deal of trust in the officers and board is required because the shareholders don't have complete access to financial and other data within the companies. This is clearly seen as a problem, it's why we have "independent" audits. Boards and officers manipulate the shareholders/stock by manipulating the data. This is exactly what happended at Worldcom, Enron, etc.
One solution is a requirement for ACCURATE disclosure of ALL financial data to shareholders (which effectively means public disclosure). This is what the recently-passed lawas are all about. Will they do any good? Probably not given the spotty enforcement by the SEC. Of course, spotty enforcement is a problem with ALL white collar crimes.
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY INTENTIONALLY ATTACK CIVILIAN TARGETS TO ADVANCE A POLITICAL AGENDA.
Examples are too numerous to mention but include knocking out power plants, industrial facilities of all kinds, hospitals, tv and radio stations, etc. These were all targets attacked in Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, etc. The politcal purposes were slightly different each time, but the overall message was the same "Do what we say, or else!"
The US military doesn't engage in wholesale slaughter of civilians not because it wouldn't be effective (killing all the Iraqis would definitely destroy Saddam Hussien's ability to cause trouble in the region) but because it would be very bad publicity and would anger the US's allies. Think what would happen if we nuked Iraq? The Egyptians, Saudis, etc. might be our allies but if we started slaughtering Arabs en mass, ANY Arabs, they would turn on us ultra-fast.
The US might be powerful, but it's power isn't infinite. The US can't fight the whole world, and part of that means that the US has to at least try to appear to be "the good guys" in every conflict, thay way they can act with international support, or at least, indifference. The fact that the US has been doing a great job at propoganda lately helps (the masterful way they controlled the press in Afghanistan, for example).
For the nasty stuff (mass murder, torture, etc.), the US prefers to use proxies so they don't suffer the direct PR fallout. In the recent Afghan conflict, most of the serious "ground work" was/is done by the "Northern Alliance" who is utterly ruthless at killing, torturing, etc. their enemies and their families. But you don't here much about this on CNN.
Terrorism = War
And in any modern war it's bloody, and messy, and lots of civilians get hurt.
It's worth noting that the "sabbatical" of Robbie Bach is significant because he was the executive that swore up and down that the X-Box was a "gaming console ONLY" and not a "digital convergence box" as many people assumed during X-Box development.
It's hardly surprising now trhat the X-Box is going down in flames that they'd switch strategies to "digital convergence box". But I don't think it's a strategy that will succeed. The "high-end" customers that would be interested in such a product already have a PS2 and a Tivo. Why would they want the all in one product? Now if they could somehow made a combo X-Box/Ultimate TV for less that $250, they would really have something. But they don't and they can't.
As I've said before... unless broadband gaming takes off in a major way in the near future (broadband adoption rates have been slowing), X-Box is doomed.
It this commet was already at +5 I'd mod it up.
This right here is a major reason I'm not involved in discussion as much as I used to be. The scattering of web boards (which have decent signal-to-noise) is very difficult to keep handle on. There are very few, id any, large gneneral discussion web bords with lots of topics and with little, if any spam.
USENet used to be the solution, but it's turned into a warez and porn distribution system and it has MASSIVE spam problems.
About the only thing that came close was eGroups, and Yahoo! is busy destroying that.
Broadband won't die because the "killer app" for broadband isn't bandwith intensive websites, it's piracy. P2P apps, MP3 downloads, warez, etc. Read between the lines of what AOL is saying, they've basically admitted this.
McDonald's didn't warn anyone because they assume it was obvious that you served coffee at near boiling-hot temperatures, especially though a drive through window where the customer (presumably) would be driving some distance with the coffee. This would allow the customer to be able to drink hot coffee for some length of time.
Look further into the lawsuit. Stella Liebeck barely saw a dime of the ultimate settlement. All that happend as the result of the lawsuit is that some lawyers got $100,000s of money and that you can't get hot beverages anymore because they might theoretically scald someone if the waitress pours it on you or you spill it on yourself.
Most product liability lawsuits are scams that simply make lawyers rich.
Slashdot ate my more lengthy reply, so I'll have to briefly summarize:
How much ammunition is sold every year in the USA? Of those millions of rounds, how many eny up in a human body? 0.01%? Less? Clearly guns are used for other purposes that killing. The overwhelming majority of those rounds ended up in targets, tin cans, and animals.
Police have as many gun accidents as "average citizens". For the most part, they aren't well-trained. Look into it.
You can't go to a compound in Montana and hide with a pile of guns. The feds will come you your house to arrest you. Ask the Branch Davidians.
Guns are tools, and like any other tool there is a non-zero risk of accidental injury associated with using them. Some tools are more dangerous than other (table saws are more dangerous than Nerf toys), but this doesn't mean we should arbitrarily ban them. One example that comes to mind is rat poison, toxic chemicals that have no other purpose than to kill animals (including humans). Yet you can but it at any grocery store. Why? Because the risk is managable. The same way the risk is manageable for firearms and automobiles.
My understanding about the deformed W thing has to do with international markets (France, Germany, etc.) where ANY depiction of the swastika or "Nazi imagery" is illegal (special exemptions are made for Holocaust memorials, etc.) You can't even find the swastika in history textbooks in Germany.
The big long-term problem ReplayTV has in providing the service is the cost of all the local phone numbers for providing dial-up access to the devices. The "tv guide" costs are next to nothing (except the fees they pay, which they would have to provide for all units anyway).
This is one of the reasons they're moving to "broadband" recorders. It's something the typical (high-end, likely to have Internet broadband) PVR customer has been asking for, and it's actually cheaper for them to provide long-term (is ethernet any more expensive than a modem?).
As an "older" ReplayTV owner, one of the things I'm worried about is them dropping the local phone numbers.
This doctrine is based on police corruption and deception. Ex, the police SAY that Bob says that he commited the crime and is guilty, but Bob denies it later. In the US, this would be a non-issue because Bob can't testify against himself therefore it's irrelavent what he might have said to the cops.
It's a simple fact that false confessions are the #1 abused tool by the state to convict innocent people. In Japan and China (and the UK?) they routinely coerce suspects into making false statements, or claim that they did. This used to be common in the USA as well, but a number of judicial decisions have curtailed the practice.
You simply can't refuse to provide a breath sample. You can be held indefinitely if you refuse to submit a breath or blood sample. I believe that it's not working through the courts as to whether or not the state can use force to extract a blood sample.
In practice, such cases are extremely rare. Perhaps 1 in 1,000,000. Such cases only make it through the higher courts BECAUSE there are serious issues that might apply to many other criminal cases. For example, Miranda led to "the right to remain silent" during questioning. Again, in practice, very few of thse cases end up as a win for the defendant.