People can be engineered. Your story even shows that; implement change, more people crash. Granted, it is the opposite result as expected.
The problem is we don't fully understand how policy changes will effect the outcome, which is why we see things like behaviorism and evidence based economics becoming more prevalent. These fields look at the cause and effect of other policies and then can determine the best policy to accomplish the task at had.
Having worked directly with both of these companies, micros as a competing point of sale company and oracle as a base infrastructure for a telcom company, I can say both charge roughly the same for hourly support. On one hand, we still own all data that goes through oracle systems while micros owns the data on their point of sales computers. If you switch pos companies, you lose access to all historical data.
The article you link to is about local governments at the city/county level. Government is always more efficient at that level as the elected are more at the mercy of their voters. Elected official's actions directly affect the day to day lives of the people and the people hold them accountable for it.
When I talk about government inefficiency I am usually referring to the federal level where they believe one policy fits all 300 million Americans. There are not a lot of success stories of national polices but tons of notable failures; national health care, medicare/medicaid, drug policies, copy right laws, and all the regulatory agencies: FCC, IRS, SEC, NSA, FBI, CIA, USPS, FDA, TSA, etc.
To use your article, the cable companies have a government sponsored monopoly at the federal and state level. These local governments are taking things into their own hands, because the people do not like these national policies created by special interest groups.
True, but the tea party will continue to have issues as long as crazy republicans jump on the band wagon, ie Sarah Palin. That one act did more to hurt the libertarian movement than anything else, in my opinion.
I see Brat as sitting on the edge of this line. While he has great stances on almost every issue, he brings in a heavy religious hand into his policies. One major point of interest is his view on ethics in government, specifically christian ethics. The problem I have with that is I can be another religion or non-religious and still be ethical and our current congress is direct proof you can be a christian and unethical.
All in all though, its a huge step in the right direction.
Thats a nice thought. If only the police went after real criminals.
There has been an ongoing battle to get police to recover stolen cell phones. These devices can be tracked right to the person holding it, in the case of most smart phones. However, as these devices generally don't fall into a felony theft, the overwhelming response is to ignore it. The problem with this mentality is in general these are proven violent criminals taking property by force.
Furthermore, there are areas in most major cities that go unpoliced because cops dare not go in except in force. There are a myriad of reasons for this, but the point is it happens.
Lastly, Id like to add, I have personally witnessed the injustice of the current police mentality. I was attacked by a person with a brick. They hit me in the head twice and stole my phone and wallet. I was seriously lucky to be alive after the assault. The police investigating the crime first bumped the charges from attempted manslaughter (which it was) to aggravated assault, so they could call off the search for my assailant. They then preceded to interrogate me and accuse me of trying to buy drugs to coerce the name of the attacker out of me. They believed I knew my assailant and flat out said they couldn't do anything else unless I gave them his name. Not only were they accusatory of someone who just had their face bashed in, but I gave them the location where my credit card was used after stolen, and my cell phone records, as the thief had been texting with my phone. They did no further investigation.
Someone first has to make the connection that the voice on the anonymous call is the officers. Im saying that most lawyers are not going to listen to a recorded phone call and immediately think, this was the cop that pulled my client over. I should go get a recording of his voice for comparison.
In the case where someone was hit by a car, I dont think a 911 phone call does justify stopping the car. There should be a cop, or at least ambulance, at the other scene where they can have eye witness testimony on the hit and run.
The lawyer would have to now the officer in question at least well enough to recognize his voice over the phone. Not likely. Who would question the call came from near the car? The person was driving near it when they witnessed it do X.
Also, I think you missed the point of adjusting the time on the ticket and report of the stop. That would put it after the call. if you tried to verify by dash cam, its only a few min, so within a margin of error and that's if you can get the dash cam tape. See the examples from LA.
Also, I do not believe non-anonymous 911 calls justify stopping the car and most certainly do not justify searching it.
More to the point, a cop pulls some one over, and suspects them of something but doesn't have enough for a search. The cop calls in reporting the car anonymously using a prepaid cell phone, a few moments later it goes out over the radio and he can now search the vehicle. Who's going to check who made the anonymous tip?
Better yet, the cop does a search and there is room to question whether it was reasonable, so he just calls in after the fact. A few min difference on the report and no one would know. Hell, why have any restraint on police officers at all when they pull over a vehicle? We should just let them do whatever they want because clearly they are trying to protect us and it is in our best interest.
That's a broad generalization that isn't 100% right or wrong:
Ethical systems are not generally based on fairness, but justice. Some don't even go that far. Utilitarianism is a good example; if throwing someone off a cliff is best for society then it is ethically permissible, but most certainly not fair.
Justice, in most philosophies, has an element of fairness to it, but not in the broad definition "Eye for an Eye" mentality. IE, you hit me in the face with a brick, so its only fair I do the same to you. Fairness in justice usually applies to simply fair application of the law to everyone. Some, like John Rawls, take that further and apply fairness to societal conditions, status, wealth etc, but that is a fairly new interpretation of justice. Oddly enough, its also based on social contract theory, where self interest is the highest motivator.
I personally side on the theory of fairness in Justice only as it applies to the application of the law. This is because in practice, fairness in broader sense (wealth distribution, status) tends to lead to a more utilitarian society, which I vehemently appose.
Slashdot Mirror
People can be engineered. Your story even shows that; implement change, more people crash. Granted, it is the opposite result as expected.
The problem is we don't fully understand how policy changes will effect the outcome, which is why we see things like behaviorism and evidence based economics becoming more prevalent. These fields look at the cause and effect of other policies and then can determine the best policy to accomplish the task at had.
As a large group, we are sheep and easily herded.
Well in truth, its a four directional map: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/an...
Holy Crap I dont believe it
Ah, if only I had mod points.
Hmm. Maybe that's a new feature. The ones I dealt with were all old models with proprietary hardware and software and fully encrypted databases.
Having worked directly with both of these companies, micros as a competing point of sale company and oracle as a base infrastructure for a telcom company, I can say both charge roughly the same for hourly support. On one hand, we still own all data that goes through oracle systems while micros owns the data on their point of sales computers. If you switch pos companies, you lose access to all historical data.
Micros already gouged their customers with licensing costs. New boss same as the old boss.
Except its not a capitalist system. Its a government sanctioned monopoly. Then you are at the mercy of the few who are allowed to sell the car.
Doesn't change how ugly that car/motorcycle/whatever is.
The article you link to is about local governments at the city/county level. Government is always more efficient at that level as the elected are more at the mercy of their voters. Elected official's actions directly affect the day to day lives of the people and the people hold them accountable for it.
When I talk about government inefficiency I am usually referring to the federal level where they believe one policy fits all 300 million Americans. There are not a lot of success stories of national polices but tons of notable failures; national health care, medicare/medicaid, drug policies, copy right laws, and all the regulatory agencies: FCC, IRS, SEC, NSA, FBI, CIA, USPS, FDA, TSA, etc.
To use your article, the cable companies have a government sponsored monopoly at the federal and state level. These local governments are taking things into their own hands, because the people do not like these national policies created by special interest groups.
True, but the tea party will continue to have issues as long as crazy republicans jump on the band wagon, ie Sarah Palin. That one act did more to hurt the libertarian movement than anything else, in my opinion.
I see Brat as sitting on the edge of this line. While he has great stances on almost every issue, he brings in a heavy religious hand into his policies. One major point of interest is his view on ethics in government, specifically christian ethics. The problem I have with that is I can be another religion or non-religious and still be ethical and our current congress is direct proof you can be a christian and unethical.
All in all though, its a huge step in the right direction.
List of languages
GIVE US MORE!
I jumped through the preview, but thanks for the correction
Paul Ingrisano also owns "I 3" ..... Yeah ok.
Thats a nice thought. If only the police went after real criminals.
There has been an ongoing battle to get police to recover stolen cell phones. These devices can be tracked right to the person holding it, in the case of most smart phones. However, as these devices generally don't fall into a felony theft, the overwhelming response is to ignore it. The problem with this mentality is in general these are proven violent criminals taking property by force.
Furthermore, there are areas in most major cities that go unpoliced because cops dare not go in except in force. There are a myriad of reasons for this, but the point is it happens.
Lastly, Id like to add, I have personally witnessed the injustice of the current police mentality. I was attacked by a person with a brick. They hit me in the head twice and stole my phone and wallet. I was seriously lucky to be alive after the assault. The police investigating the crime first bumped the charges from attempted manslaughter (which it was) to aggravated assault, so they could call off the search for my assailant. They then preceded to interrogate me and accuse me of trying to buy drugs to coerce the name of the attacker out of me. They believed I knew my assailant and flat out said they couldn't do anything else unless I gave them his name. Not only were they accusatory of someone who just had their face bashed in, but I gave them the location where my credit card was used after stolen, and my cell phone records, as the thief had been texting with my phone. They did no further investigation.
You, sir, live in a very idealistic world.
To Quote a major cultural influence and perhaps some of the greatest minds of our time:
"History shows again and again how nature points out the follies of man..... GODZILLA!" - Blue Oyster Cult
Binary is base 2 (0,1), DNA is base 4 (A,T,G,C), and this new version would be base 6 (A,T,G,C,X,Y). The data storage is astronomically more.
Someone first has to make the connection that the voice on the anonymous call is the officers. Im saying that most lawyers are not going to listen to a recorded phone call and immediately think, this was the cop that pulled my client over. I should go get a recording of his voice for comparison.
In the case where someone was hit by a car, I dont think a 911 phone call does justify stopping the car. There should be a cop, or at least ambulance, at the other scene where they can have eye witness testimony on the hit and run.
The lawyer would have to now the officer in question at least well enough to recognize his voice over the phone. Not likely. Who would question the call came from near the car? The person was driving near it when they witnessed it do X.
Also, I think you missed the point of adjusting the time on the ticket and report of the stop. That would put it after the call. if you tried to verify by dash cam, its only a few min, so within a margin of error and that's if you can get the dash cam tape. See the examples from LA.
Also, I do not believe non-anonymous 911 calls justify stopping the car and most certainly do not justify searching it.
More to the point, a cop pulls some one over, and suspects them of something but doesn't have enough for a search. The cop calls in reporting the car anonymously using a prepaid cell phone, a few moments later it goes out over the radio and he can now search the vehicle. Who's going to check who made the anonymous tip?
Better yet, the cop does a search and there is room to question whether it was reasonable, so he just calls in after the fact. A few min difference on the report and no one would know. Hell, why have any restraint on police officers at all when they pull over a vehicle? We should just let them do whatever they want because clearly they are trying to protect us and it is in our best interest.
Ethical systems are not generally based on fairness, but justice. Some don't even go that far. Utilitarianism is a good example; if throwing someone off a cliff is best for society then it is ethically permissible, but most certainly not fair.
Justice, in most philosophies, has an element of fairness to it, but not in the broad definition "Eye for an Eye" mentality. IE, you hit me in the face with a brick, so its only fair I do the same to you. Fairness in justice usually applies to simply fair application of the law to everyone. Some, like John Rawls, take that further and apply fairness to societal conditions, status, wealth etc, but that is a fairly new interpretation of justice. Oddly enough, its also based on social contract theory, where self interest is the highest motivator.
I personally side on the theory of fairness in Justice only as it applies to the application of the law. This is because in practice, fairness in broader sense (wealth distribution, status) tends to lead to a more utilitarian society, which I vehemently appose.
Lol and yours, taking the path of minimal effort. Sounds like laziness to me.
It's only fair. It's not like fairness and consideration for others is a cornerstone of a functioning society or anything.
And "do unto others as was done unto you" is not a very good argument for continuing a practice.
Life isnt fair. Its not the job of the government to make life fair. Where are you getting that idea from?
Thank you. If only I had mod points. Its seems most people on this thread have $100,000 to throw around.