They usually radio a magistrate at the station and take you a hospital or clinic to have blood drawn. This little machine could prevent people from dropping below the limit in the interim
Kickstarter doesn't allow for charities, and is VERY strict about what gets on there. I seem to remember reading a 60% approval rate including projects who appeal the initial rejection.
The spirit of that idea is fantastic though...surely there is another solid crowdfunding site.
Preface: I am aligning them with how *I* think they would be done, because you failed to provide that detail. You're simply using something completely nebulous and shapeless, and you're doing it on purpose. No one can criticize your awful idea if there aren't any well-defined details. There is a saying that applies here "the devil is in the details."
"You assume not" I honestly have no idea what you mean by this.
"Then assume poor implementation" I'm not assuming anything I'm saying that the idea in of itself is flawed no matter what it's implementation.
"Then attack an idea without understanding it" I can only go on the rambling paragraph provided.
You also never said what part I misunderstood? I think I understand your abstract advocacy better than you do! Do the words "ad hominem" mean anything to you?
"how would the rich guy feel if he was hit with a 1-year fine" Contention: How would a poor person feel about being hit with a fine for 1 year of his income? No poor person can pay a year of his/her income in any reasonable amount of time. I don't consider myself poor, and it would take me the better part of a decade to do so. 5 years to a decade under crushing debt. You know what people do when their back is up against the wall? They do whatever the fuck it takes to feed their family. I dealt pot small-time when I was broke, because I felt I didn't have much choice. If I had to make that money not to clothe, feed etc myself and my family...but to pay the state? I would not-care so hard it would be ridiculous.
If you want to argue "well drugs would be legal" I have an even worse scenario that WILL happen. Since there would no longer be tons of unregulated money in that industry...when people get desperate instead of selling drugs they are just going to rob people instead The worst thing they can get is more money tacked on to the debt right? If I already owe more money than I can pay who cares if I owe more? Especially if there is a chance that the crime I'm committing might pay the original fine. Couldn't I just play the odds and keep committing profitable crime until my debts are gone? Eventually I'm going to not get caught long enough to pay it off.
Let me tell you how the rich person will feel: He will go to HSBC, Chase, etc, and withdraw the money from his savings. He will then return to the courthouse and pay the fine. Don't say you're going to base it on his assets either, because NO ONE with assets declares it all. The things not declared are generally at least somewhat hidden.
Contention 2: Oh and extend what I said about this burdening the already bogged down justice system. As the judicial system would have far greater autonomy...that results in greater choice. Greater choice means it is more difficult to make a decision, because there are (inherently) more options to go through. I'll get to inconsistency later.
Further extend the logic behind the justice system point The impacts are threefold: A) A burdened justice system is going to be a slower justice system. This is empirically proven by the Zimmerman case (or any case) in which the delay between arrest is objectively ridiculous. A slower justice system means that more people are in custody for longer which is contrary to a fair and speedy trial. B) A heavily taxed legal system results in dockets that are consistently full. This is the case in many places already, but not in the majority of the US. A full docket means less judicial resources can be allocated on a per-individual basis. Less judicial resources allocated per-person means less time for the discovery phase, which means a trial far more likely to be flawed in regards to the true facts. C) Public defenders are already considered the bottom rung of the ladder. By allocating less resources they would be going from overworked to impossibly buried. Cross apply the point from sub point A.
Contention 3: In our current judiciary system monetary fines are already in place, and do NOT act as a deterren
"And when said local government official gets thrown out of office for abuse of powers, you can bet that the next local government official won't be too keen about acting on the wishes on another private party."
This happens about as often as a small marijuana deal is stopped. Even then just so it looks like "people are doing their job."
Well what if we can't? All of a sudden we've lost something irretrievably - it is THAT idea behind the spending. You don't care very much about your toys until someone tries to take them away or break them..
1. Okay that's fantastic, but you could say that about almost any series. 2. I fail to understand what was wrong with that?
The politics and the monologues made a lot of sense. The characters (except qui-gon and amadala) were all relatable, and they all had a proper arc. Their motifvations were organic for the most part. You didn't have the pile of contrived horse shit that is the arena scene from Episode 2. Or Hayden Christiansen boo-hooing every 3 seconds. Or a (again) contrived and terrible love story. I also hate, utterly hate, and abhor stylized action. The transporter and its ilk shouldn't exist in my opinion. I say so because the entire content of 2 and 3 is one super-stylized super-long action scene after another. The action in the originals wasn't exactly gritty, but it was a damn sight closer! Anakin's decent almost felt shoehorned in instead of a gradual decline. The scene with Palpatine was just...ugh. I can't talk about this anymore.
Most of it probably stems from my frankly being tired of action scenes. Episode one to me had a good balance between dialogue and action. The podracer scene was great, and the lightsaber duel at the end was one of the best. That duel is stylized, but they hadn't gone overboard yet. The scene with the gungans was a halfway decent battle, but it felt lot more like the other movies in a bad way.
That sounds great in theory, but youroffer no manner in which the "spirit of the law" may be OBJECTIVELY derived. So combined w more judicial power... So they have more power to misinrerpret a broader concept? No thanks. People would receive radically inconsistent treatment.Judge1: "Well technically that was selfdefense under the letter of thr law go home"
Judge2: "the letter of the law says its okay...but I feel the spirit of that law makes it impermissible despite you having no way to argue against it or have knowledge beforehand. Murder 30 years."
Some (not all) of the laws are complex for VERY good reason. You have to include x and z while excluding y in as little text as possible. Further a lot of the situations those laws govern are equally complex. Financial crime laws anyone?
This is one of the most insane, idealstically naive proposals I've ever read... I could do a line by line, but you're not worth it. A couple things though: This would take unprescedented judicial resources to implement... in an already heavily strained judicial system.
Further I WANT people in jail if they break one of my bones no matter how temporary the pain. How can you be a liberal? Such a system would let the wealthy walk on you since the only punishment is monetary! This is so far disconnected from reality that you might be a martian.
And pointing out corruption and greed makes you a misanthropic conservative? Have you been alive since bush took office? Or obama? Man our president has a hit list.
Why all the hate for episode one? It literally sets up the entire trilogy! The senate alone makes it worth watching. I guess since something doesn't get shot or explode constantly? I went back and watched the originals and had (until now) never notice how little substance there is...episode one also didn't have Hayden Christiansen
The original is one of the worst movies ever to be made...it was even terrible when it was made. Voice based powers? Illdefine "spice"? Inner monologue voiceovers? Ugh awful
Slashdot Mirror
Please no. I know how they'll vote and it will create an absolute prescedent.
The taxi driver union muscled out rickshaws in nyc too...unions are good until they become corrupt, but is it inevitible?
Does being in our heads make it any less real/gross
Was about to basically say this word for word.
I've never seen so many antiliberal pistd get voted up *snicker.* And I wonder why we're actually in the black here in tx
They usually radio a magistrate at the station and take you a hospital or clinic to have blood drawn. This little machine could prevent people from dropping below the limit in the interim
Kickstarter doesn't allow for charities, and is VERY strict about what gets on there. I seem to remember reading a 60% approval rate including projects who appeal the initial rejection.
The spirit of that idea is fantastic though...surely there is another solid crowdfunding site.
Only because google doesn't want anyone muscling in on their territory
Okay sorry (I mean that sincerely) it may have been a bit harsh
I got really into a zone of some kind.
Preface:
I am aligning them with how *I* think they would be done, because you failed to provide that detail. You're simply using something completely nebulous and shapeless, and you're doing it on purpose. No one can criticize your awful idea if there aren't any well-defined details. There is a saying that applies here "the devil is in the details."
"You assume not" I honestly have no idea what you mean by this.
"Then assume poor implementation" I'm not assuming anything I'm saying that the idea in of itself is flawed no matter what it's implementation.
"Then attack an idea without understanding it"
I can only go on the rambling paragraph provided.
You also never said what part I misunderstood? I think I understand your abstract advocacy better than you do! Do the words "ad hominem" mean anything to you?
"how would the rich guy feel if he was hit with a 1-year fine"
Contention:
How would a poor person feel about being hit with a fine for 1 year of his income? No poor person can pay a year of his/her income in any reasonable amount of time. I don't consider myself poor, and it would take me the better part of a decade to do so. 5 years to a decade under crushing debt. You know what people do when their back is up against the wall? They do whatever the fuck it takes to feed their family. I dealt pot small-time when I was broke, because I felt I didn't have much choice. If I had to make that money not to clothe, feed etc myself and my family...but to pay the state? I would not-care so hard it would be ridiculous.
If you want to argue "well drugs would be legal" I have an even worse scenario that WILL happen. Since there would no longer be tons of unregulated money in that industry...when people get desperate instead of selling drugs they are just going to rob people instead
The worst thing they can get is more money tacked on to the debt right? If I already owe more money than I can pay who cares if I owe more? Especially if there is a chance that the crime I'm committing might pay the original fine. Couldn't I just play the odds and keep committing profitable crime until my debts are gone? Eventually I'm going to not get caught long enough to pay it off.
Let me tell you how the rich person will feel: He will go to HSBC, Chase, etc, and withdraw the money from his savings. He will then return to the courthouse and pay the fine. Don't say you're going to base it on his assets either, because NO ONE with assets declares it all. The things not declared are generally at least somewhat hidden.
Contention 2:
Oh and extend what I said about this burdening the already bogged down justice system. As the judicial system would have far greater autonomy...that results in greater choice. Greater choice means it is more difficult to make a decision, because there are (inherently) more options to go through. I'll get to inconsistency later.
Further extend the logic behind the justice system point
The impacts are threefold:
A) A burdened justice system is going to be a slower justice system. This is empirically proven by the Zimmerman case (or any case) in which the delay between arrest is objectively ridiculous. A slower justice system means that more people are in custody for longer which is contrary to a fair and speedy trial.
B) A heavily taxed legal system results in dockets that are consistently full. This is the case in many places already, but not in the majority of the US. A full docket means less judicial resources can be allocated on a per-individual basis. Less judicial resources allocated per-person means less time for the discovery phase, which means a trial far more likely to be flawed in regards to the true facts.
C) Public defenders are already considered the bottom rung of the ladder. By allocating less resources they would be going from overworked to impossibly buried. Cross apply the point from sub point A.
Contention 3:
In our current judiciary system monetary fines are already in place, and do NOT act as a deterren
Good point..and if you count hospitals they're a lot more likely to kill you than the government.
I would consider kicking in a drug dealers house an act of violence for a purpose other than self-defense. It's also legitimized by the state.
"And when said local government official gets thrown out of office for abuse of powers, you can bet that the next local government official won't be too keen about acting on the wishes on another private party."
This happens about as often as a small marijuana deal is stopped. Even then just so it looks like "people are doing their job."
Well what if we can't? All of a sudden we've lost something irretrievably - it is THAT idea behind the spending. You don't care very much about your toys until someone tries to take them away or break them..
Blasphemer how dare you say a scientific discipline is nerdy!
1. Okay that's fantastic, but you could say that about almost any series.
2. I fail to understand what was wrong with that?
The politics and the monologues made a lot of sense. The characters (except qui-gon and amadala) were all relatable, and they all had a proper arc. Their motifvations were organic for the most part. You didn't have the pile of contrived horse shit that is the arena scene from Episode 2. Or Hayden Christiansen boo-hooing every 3 seconds. Or a (again) contrived and terrible love story.
I also hate, utterly hate, and abhor stylized action. The transporter and its ilk shouldn't exist in my opinion. I say so because the entire content of 2 and 3 is one super-stylized super-long action scene after another. The action in the originals wasn't exactly gritty, but it was a damn sight closer!
Anakin's decent almost felt shoehorned in instead of a gradual decline. The scene with Palpatine was just...ugh. I can't talk about this anymore.
Most of it probably stems from my frankly being tired of action scenes. Episode one to me had a good balance between dialogue and action. The podracer scene was great, and the lightsaber duel at the end was one of the best. That duel is stylized, but they hadn't gone overboard yet. The scene with the gungans was a halfway decent battle, but it felt lot more like the other movies in a bad way.
How do you cook a molecule to death? Enlighten me.
Nuclear fusion resulting in a heavier molecule? The molecule in its original form no longer exists.
That sounds great in theory, but youroffer no manner in which the "spirit of the law" may be OBJECTIVELY derived. So combined w more judicial power...
So they have more power to misinrerpret a broader concept? No thanks.
People would receive radically inconsistent treatment.Judge1: "Well technically that was selfdefense under the letter of thr law go home"
Judge2: "the letter of the law says its okay...but I feel the spirit of that law makes it impermissible despite you having no way to argue against it or have knowledge beforehand. Murder 30 years."
Some (not all) of the laws are complex for VERY good reason. You have to include x and z while excluding y in as little text as possible. Further a lot of the situations those laws govern are equally complex. Financial crime laws anyone?
This is one of the most insane, idealstically naive proposals I've ever read...
I could do a line by line, but you're not worth it. A couple things though:
This would take unprescedented judicial resources to implement...
in an already heavily strained judicial system.
Further I WANT people in jail if they break one of my bones no matter how temporary the pain. How can you be a liberal? Such a system would let the wealthy walk on you since the only punishment is monetary! This is so far disconnected from reality that you might be a martian.
And pointing out corruption and greed makes you a misanthropic conservative? Have you been alive since bush took office? Or obama? Man our president has a hit list.
Why all the hate for episode one? It literally sets up the entire trilogy! The senate alone makes it worth watching. I guess since something doesn't get shot or explode constantly?
I went back and watched the originals and had (until now) never notice how little substance there is...episode one also didn't have Hayden Christiansen
The original is one of the worst movies ever to be made...it was even terrible when it was made. Voice based powers? Illdefine "spice"? Inner monologue voiceovers? Ugh awful
Stupid joke.
If you're being serious "The District of Columbia" makes more sense with the "the."
The last 2 presidents have been a cancer on our nation. Reagen and Clinton weren't perfect, but they were a damn site better.
Package management is what I call trimming my pubes.
You forgot nigh-immunity to FOIA quests.