Assuming that humans have the will to "adjust". So far, humans have molded the environment to suit their purposes. Reshaping the land, modifying water sources, etc. Thus humans have not really adjusted, they've merely made the environment adjust. However, [whatever the cause] the day will come when climate change will be overwhelming. Will humans be prepared? I have my doubts. Look at all the numbskulls who insist upon buying and developing oceanfront, riverfront, lake front properties, etc. Then when their property is destroyed as in the Hurricane Sandy fiasco, they all want everyone else to chip in and rebuild their homes ON THE SAME STRIP OF LAND! because "it's their home". Boo-hoo. That kind of behavior is epidemic among people. They want what they want, even when it makes little sense. Who ever said humans are "rational beings". Being rational requires examining the facts, the odds, etc. There are is huge cohort of humans who don't care until everything they have is gone. That does not bode well for the future of humankind. The fact that humans have been able to stave off slight environmental changes, fight off many historically prevalent diseases, develop techniques to extent lifetimes, etc. is NOT an indicator of how successful the species will be in the future. Life is like playing craps. You can toss a few good hands and it will give you the impression you're on a winning streak. But in the end, if you keep playing against the odds you're going to loose. That is what humankind is doing.
Perhaps. But there are some things different today then 20,000 years ago when the last ice age ended. First of all, the world was not populated with 7 or 8 billion people. Secondly, there were far more trees, equatorial jungles, and the like for the people back then to survive off of the natural resources. Then there is the issue of urbanization and our dependence upon refined carbon fuels. There was more wild game for the humans to survive off of. ETC. ETC. It always amazes human beings when a crisis happens as if no one saw it coming. In this case we can see climate change happening. Whether its cause is natural or man-made makes no difference. Just hope that it is not one of your descendants who doesn't make it in the future. I for one would prefer a planned response to climate change as opposed to a hit and miss approach because of sufficient carbon fuels today. The "precautionary principle" is nearly always the best approach. But instead we charge headfirst along with our fingers crossed and damn the naysayers. It is the attitude of the naïve to meekly believe "we'll find a way" [at the last minute]. Our brains give us the capacity "think", "reason", to "plan" and "prepare" but we often fail to do so because of false hope.
I may be a little off-base but there used to be a time in the U.S. that our legal system was premised upon actual "misdeeds" not "thought crime". We now appear to live in an age in which crimes are "manufactured" out of obscure, fragmented and ambiguous data elements that could "potentially" lead to a criminal act. Then the purported perpetrator[s] are accused of "plotting" destruction even before the act is committed. I think people should be able to think anything they want. Even engage in ambiguously and potentially criminal acts for freedom's sake. What makes the difference is whether or not the act is actually carried out. Actual destructive actions should be the punishable offense, not thinking about it. Sure, this may place a heavy burden on law enforcement but I'm willing to accept that in exchange for personal freedom[s]. Besides, we are ALL ultimately responsible for our own self-protection. That requires that we be aware of our surroundings. To live with a certain degree of "precaution". To hone our personal skills in detecting potentially dangerous situations and utilizing a considerable degree of "street smarts". There are way too many people who have abandoned their personal responsibility for their own safety. They live as innocent children, expecting the world to be a "peaceful and enjoyable" trip to an amusement park where life is happy all the time and just kick back and wait for the guys in the white coats [or blue, or grey or whatever] to come and save them. We all like to think of ourselves as "adults" but we don't what the personal responsibility of acting seriously as adults. Rather, children wanting all the privileges of rank but little responsibility. One of the things we are ALL personally responsible for is our own safety. But most people think that responsibility falls upon someone else. Those who complain about safety but are unwilling to accept personal responsibility for it are creating a burden upon society. It's time everyone stopped whining about "safety" and started acting like adults.
Not according to his [press] collaborators. Accordingly they assert they heavily scrutinized what's been revealed to the public. They edited names, dates, places, etc. in order to limit exposure for any one individual. Snowden claims he merely wanted to expose the overarching surveillance programs because "the world has a right to know". Especially the NSA who is supposed to be operating for the benefit of [free] people. He certainly has not been another example of [Bradley] Chelsea Manning document release. The only people portraying Snowden as a "traitor" has been the intelligence agencies themselves, certain hawkish elected officials and public and private groups too naïve and stupid to realize their freedoms are going down the crapper in the post 9-11 America under the ruse of "security" which has been so misconstrued with double-speak and "true-speak" that no one can distinguish truth from fiction anymore.
According to FactCheck, Bush would've won only if a "limited" recount had been completed [which is what the Fla Supreme Court had ordered]. However, had a recount of all "disputed" ballots been allowed to be recounted, then Gore would've won. Pick your poison.
Seems to me Kerry is speaking out both sides of his mouth. Obviously there needs to be a balance between the two, but the scale should weigh heavily on the side of privacy. The "security" threat is overblown and utilized as a scare tactic. First of all, we ALL need to realize there is no such thing as security; at least not in the sense of near total security that the government would like us to set as an operational standard. No one person[s] can expect to be secure at any give time. And by the government generating the perception that they can make the country "secure" is a smoke screen for evolution of totalitarianism. Security in the true sense of the word can only be approximated by the actions of each individual, taking steps to ensure their own security by being aware of one's surroundings, being prepared for the unexpected, etc. The idea that the government can make us secure is in order to make people more dependent upon government.
Somewhat like Bill Gates who stole the idea for GUI and windows from Zerox and Zuckerman who stole the idea of "social media" from his roommate. You can find countless examples in which so-called "innovators" got their ideas from someone else and merely beat them to the punch. Kind of contemporary high speed trading, people manipulating stock prices before the average trader has a chance to move on a trade.
Unfortunately, in all (un) civilized societies there are people who feel they can do whatever they want. Take the licensing of vehicles. Licensing is not merely a way for state governments to extract fees. It's also a means of identifying the vehicle. Why is that necessary? Ask yourself how many vehicle accidents there are everyday. Then ask how many of those accidents involve a hit and run. Which happened to me a couple years ago. Had it not been for an identifying plate on the vehicle the driver may very well got away with it. But a witness to the accident got the plate number. Problem solved. One thing "libertarians" like to ignore are personal protections from those individuals in society who are anti-social, irresponsible and just plain narcissistic. My experience with libertarians gives me a distinct impression that it wouldn't take much for them to become anarchists. Creating a society that is a free-for-all and one based upon "survival of the fittest". That's fine if one wants a society structured like the Klingon. But I'm not too convinced most human beings really want that.
In the game of life do we prioritize technical accomplishment or moral character? The fact that the world (which in large part has adopted western economic values) loves to worship the extreme achievers as opposed to their moral character is a main ingredient in the crumbling of the global social contract. I have far more respect for a person who possess a respect for their fellow homo sapiens than I do for an inventor/business person who is obsessed with wealth, power, fame and their own ego. Being a good business person does not scale equally with being a person of solid character and morality. Just saying.
FORTY years ago holding businesses more accountable was probably a more realistic scenario. Back then it was mostly large institutions and the wealthy who were playing the markets and were willing to assume some risk. However, since the 1980s and the advent of IRAs, Deferred Compensation, day trading, personal computers, portfolio management software, the industry promotion of the idea of retirement planning on an individual basis as opposed to defined benefit retirement plans, etc. the pool of investors are no longer the mere wealthy and institutions. Now, half the individual people in the U.S., Europe, etc. are potential victims when big business is penalized, leaders jailed and companies fined or shutdown. And what would those investors do when their holdings are taken from them? Call their elected officials and threaten not to vote for them if they loose all their savings. In other words, everyone, even the little guy, have their fingers in the pie making punishing business more of a political hot potato.
Ludicrous. Making light of the destructive capabilities of a vehicle is evidence of blatant bias. Regardless of any "intent" of an apparatus, it's the end result that matters. Statistically, vehicles kill and maim more people every year in the U.S. than firearms. Your also assuming that the mature of an apparatus dictates its uses. Just because a vehicle is intended to transport does not necessarily it is utilized responsibly and safely. Drivers ignore school zones more often than firearms owners ignore the safe handling if their weapons. Drivers ignore speed limits and driving conditions far more often than (legal) firearms owners ignore the laws governing the handing and use of deadly force with firearms. In the book More Guns Less Crime" the authors demonstrates that firearms injuries and deaths are exaggerated, overblown and embellished compared to injuries incurred by vehicles and other means. Nationwide statistics bear out and have always bore out that deaths and injuries caused by licensed firearms owners are (and have been) below 1%. All things being equal, licensed firearms owners (and homes for that matter) are no more likely to be struck by violent tragedy than households that own vehicles. In fact families are more likely to be struck by (vehicle) violence than are homes with firearms. Are you willing to give up your motor vehicles (including motorcycles) for fear of being killed? If not, why not? You're more likely to die in a vehicle accident than in the home of a licensed gun owner. And if your not, you position is mere hypocrisy.
That's a hopelessly narcissistic view of self defense. It completely ignores situations and individual circumstances in which being (legally) armed makes complete sense. For example in the case of those who have physical limitations and/or the elderly. Oh, wait, how about I politely ask a perpetrator to cease their actions while I punch up 911. There are many people who don't have the capacity to run away from needlessly aggressive anti-social Neanderthals. I myself have encountered them in public. Some if them are willing to crush your face in just because they don't like the way someone looks at them. Usually they're in the 18 - 35 year age group. Punks that think they are "all that". They're more plentiful than one would normally believe until something happens.
A friend of mine has been actively managing his own stick portfolio for twenty years. He's invested thousands in software over the years he uses to execute trades. After years of "playing the market" he told me a couple years ago that he thought the market "was rigged somehow". It seemed to him that many times he found a good prospective investment, someone else always beat him to it and prices would increase before he had a chance to make his trades. Something seemed fishy to him. Well... now I know his instincts were on the ball (and so does he). Doesn't surprise me though. That's the way capitalism works - find some way to fuck the other guy and make more for yourself. The markets are completely amoral. There is no moral basis to capitalism.
How about... it's better to keep an "innocent" person in prison than to execute an innocent person? Guilty people (those who are clearly guilty, admit they are guilty and all evidence supports their guilt) deserve to forfeit their life for the life(s) they took. Otherwise there is no such thing as "justice".
Capital punishment certainly is a deterrent to those executed. There have been numerous cases where murders were released from prison (a decade or two later) and they killed again. The death penalty would've prevented those subsequent murders. So... it us a deterrent.
The state doesn't wantonly execute people for no reason, like many murders do. There's no equitable comparison there. The state only acts in response to individual acts that demonstrate certain people are not capable of peaceful coexistence with other human beings by wantonly taking other people's lives.
There's nothing in the definition of "punishment" that excludes "killing". And the denial of continued life certainly is a form of punishment. It may be the most extreme form of punishment. But it's punishment just the same. Punishment by definition is the act of denying someone something they want or taking something they want away from them - period. Many will claim that capital punishment is never warranted because of the imperfections if the justice system. But to the extent that a particular perpetrator can clearly be identified by a combination of voluntary guilty pleas and factual evidence, then capital punishment may very well be an equitable punishment for maliciously taking someone else's life. And at the very least, for those who are clearly guilty, it saves society from the cost of housing those individuals for the rest of their natural lives. It frees up over crowded prison space and provides some sense of justice for survivors. The real injustice, at least in cases in which the guilty is clearly guilty, is the fact that survivors have to wait decades for the justice system to exhaust the appeal process.
To some extent I'd probably agree. But the reverse is "true" also. That is, an entirely private infrastructure has the same structure of disincentives. That being "profit" and returns to investors. So private companies have an incentive to not invest in infrastructure as well. Take for example telecommunications in the U.S. By industry standards (worldwide) the U.S. telecommunications infrastructure is at least five years BEHIND Europe in broadband coverage. And the main reason for that is the profit motive. It's more lucrative to not make the necessary investments when everyone is forced into the same (relatively slow) broadband market. The only reason broadband is being expanded is because Congress has mandated the upgrading of the telecom services and coverage areas. And that for the most part has been the case in many arms of the U.S. infrastructure; the forcing of corporations to meet certain minimum standards. In other words, profit is the sole consideration in infrastructure development. Thus, you have the same end result. Either government is considered too inefficient or corporations are too efficient at least when infrastructure is gauged by cost/benefit analysis.
For one, cell phone use requires (at least for most users) hands-on manipulation that often requires taking your attention off the road. It also oftentimes requires the manipulation of equipment not directly related to safe driving (i.e. taking your hands of the wheel, etc.). Most people can keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel while talking to another passenger. Although it would be a good practice to not even engage in conversation at all while driving because any conversation is distracting. We should remember the purpose of driving is to get from one destination to another in a reduced amount of time and more conveniently. But it is not a "right". It's incumbent upon operators to operate moving vehicles safely and responsibly. That is the prime directive of motor vehicle operation.
Couldn't agree more. It's sickening though the fact that most people don't seem to care one iota whether or not they are being manipulated like automatons. Most people seem to even revel in the fact that someone is thinking for them and using data and demographics to get you to do things one wouldn't normally so. Such as spend money they don't possess or own. Take for example Americans. They are the biggest debtors on the planet. And that includes the conservatives, the (Ron) Paulines, the Tea Partiers, etc.
I couldn't concur more. Americans (especially those under 50) have been so brainwashed over the past few decades, ever since Reagan kept pounding into everyone's heads how great Americans (and by default Americans) are. After all, America has a "manifest (manifesto comparable to the 1917 Communist manifesto) destiny". "The greatest country in the world." Putin was right when he stated in his NY Times op-ed (Sept 2013) that it is morally wrong to tell a country they are superior to anyone else in the world. It is human nature to take such ideologies to heart and begin thinking you actually ARE superior to everyone else. But that is wrong, arrogant, belittling of others and narcissistic. Americans used to possess a sense of humility that respected other peoples and recognized other cultures on par with its own. That becomes very difficult to do when it's pounded into your head all the time "how great thou art." Interestingly, I think that shift in self-importance correlates with the rise of fundamentalist Christianity and predatory capitalism in America.
The "privacy in public, being a contradiction" is not only naïve but draconian as well. Do we really want to be surveilling ourselves? Filming or recording events doesn't necessarily solve anything. With all the photo and video editing software on the market, it's no big effort to edit video to our own advantage. Even if everyone agreed to record everything said and done, it still doesn't mean words, phrases, body language etc. couldn't be misinterpreted by a third party. Even today, that is generally recognized in legal and administrative procedures. I know it is highly unusual in labor/management negotiations (for example) for there to be recording of the proceedings. Why? It doesn't necessarily guarantee the whose interpretation of discussions takes precedence. It's just as easy for labor or management to assert what was said or done (even when recorded) is being misinterpreted. All things considered, recording an event doesn't necessarily "prove" anything. Ultimately, recording everything will merely result in a false sense of security or "rightness" AND make social intercourse more intimidating and suspect. Need we be concerned about EVERYTHING we say to anyone else no matter where we are? If so, what you propose is truly Orwellian and I suspect would ultimately lead to a breakdown of social cohesion and the "social contract".
Improvements come from critical mass citizen action. I don't foresee any such thing happening in the U.S. The citizenry there is too divided over basic common sense values, apathy, ignorance and self-interest to form any critical mass for change such as like happened during the 1960's and 70's with public corruption, Vietnam, civil rights, etc..in which you could fund large crowds in the streets protesting. The millennial generation is so pre-occupied with their "toys" (XBoxes, smart phones, laptops/tablets, reality TV, etc.) they don't know (or have the motivation) to actually step outside their door to demonstrate their pissed. Sure there's "social media" people can bitch on. But that's not anywhere equivalent to making the effort to move a body into the streets. Face-to-face confrontation means something far more significant than a faceless or potentially phony name on the internet. Reaching people is only the first step in social change. Real change involves taking on the task of direct challenges. And that doesn't happen much anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming that humans have the will to "adjust". So far, humans have molded the environment to suit their purposes. Reshaping the land, modifying water sources, etc. Thus humans have not really adjusted, they've merely made the environment adjust. However, [whatever the cause] the day will come when climate change will be overwhelming. Will humans be prepared? I have my doubts. Look at all the numbskulls who insist upon buying and developing oceanfront, riverfront, lake front properties, etc. Then when their property is destroyed as in the Hurricane Sandy fiasco, they all want everyone else to chip in and rebuild their homes ON THE SAME STRIP OF LAND! because "it's their home". Boo-hoo. That kind of behavior is epidemic among people. They want what they want, even when it makes little sense. Who ever said humans are "rational beings". Being rational requires examining the facts, the odds, etc. There are is huge cohort of humans who don't care until everything they have is gone. That does not bode well for the future of humankind. The fact that humans have been able to stave off slight environmental changes, fight off many historically prevalent diseases, develop techniques to extent lifetimes, etc. is NOT an indicator of how successful the species will be in the future. Life is like playing craps. You can toss a few good hands and it will give you the impression you're on a winning streak. But in the end, if you keep playing against the odds you're going to loose. That is what humankind is doing.
Perhaps. But there are some things different today then 20,000 years ago when the last ice age ended. First of all, the world was not populated with 7 or 8 billion people. Secondly, there were far more trees, equatorial jungles, and the like for the people back then to survive off of the natural resources. Then there is the issue of urbanization and our dependence upon refined carbon fuels. There was more wild game for the humans to survive off of. ETC. ETC. It always amazes human beings when a crisis happens as if no one saw it coming. In this case we can see climate change happening. Whether its cause is natural or man-made makes no difference. Just hope that it is not one of your descendants who doesn't make it in the future. I for one would prefer a planned response to climate change as opposed to a hit and miss approach because of sufficient carbon fuels today. The "precautionary principle" is nearly always the best approach. But instead we charge headfirst along with our fingers crossed and damn the naysayers. It is the attitude of the naïve to meekly believe "we'll find a way" [at the last minute]. Our brains give us the capacity "think", "reason", to "plan" and "prepare" but we often fail to do so because of false hope.
I may be a little off-base but there used to be a time in the U.S. that our legal system was premised upon actual "misdeeds" not "thought crime". We now appear to live in an age in which crimes are "manufactured" out of obscure, fragmented and ambiguous data elements that could "potentially" lead to a criminal act. Then the purported perpetrator[s] are accused of "plotting" destruction even before the act is committed. I think people should be able to think anything they want. Even engage in ambiguously and potentially criminal acts for freedom's sake. What makes the difference is whether or not the act is actually carried out. Actual destructive actions should be the punishable offense, not thinking about it. Sure, this may place a heavy burden on law enforcement but I'm willing to accept that in exchange for personal freedom[s]. Besides, we are ALL ultimately responsible for our own self-protection. That requires that we be aware of our surroundings. To live with a certain degree of "precaution". To hone our personal skills in detecting potentially dangerous situations and utilizing a considerable degree of "street smarts". There are way too many people who have abandoned their personal responsibility for their own safety. They live as innocent children, expecting the world to be a "peaceful and enjoyable" trip to an amusement park where life is happy all the time and just kick back and wait for the guys in the white coats [or blue, or grey or whatever] to come and save them. We all like to think of ourselves as "adults" but we don't what the personal responsibility of acting seriously as adults. Rather, children wanting all the privileges of rank but little responsibility. One of the things we are ALL personally responsible for is our own safety. But most people think that responsibility falls upon someone else. Those who complain about safety but are unwilling to accept personal responsibility for it are creating a burden upon society. It's time everyone stopped whining about "safety" and started acting like adults.
Not according to his [press] collaborators. Accordingly they assert they heavily scrutinized what's been revealed to the public. They edited names, dates, places, etc. in order to limit exposure for any one individual. Snowden claims he merely wanted to expose the overarching surveillance programs because "the world has a right to know". Especially the NSA who is supposed to be operating for the benefit of [free] people. He certainly has not been another example of [Bradley] Chelsea Manning document release. The only people portraying Snowden as a "traitor" has been the intelligence agencies themselves, certain hawkish elected officials and public and private groups too naïve and stupid to realize their freedoms are going down the crapper in the post 9-11 America under the ruse of "security" which has been so misconstrued with double-speak and "true-speak" that no one can distinguish truth from fiction anymore.
According to FactCheck, Bush would've won only if a "limited" recount had been completed [which is what the Fla Supreme Court had ordered]. However, had a recount of all "disputed" ballots been allowed to be recounted, then Gore would've won. Pick your poison.
Seems to me Kerry is speaking out both sides of his mouth. Obviously there needs to be a balance between the two, but the scale should weigh heavily on the side of privacy. The "security" threat is overblown and utilized as a scare tactic. First of all, we ALL need to realize there is no such thing as security; at least not in the sense of near total security that the government would like us to set as an operational standard. No one person[s] can expect to be secure at any give time. And by the government generating the perception that they can make the country "secure" is a smoke screen for evolution of totalitarianism. Security in the true sense of the word can only be approximated by the actions of each individual, taking steps to ensure their own security by being aware of one's surroundings, being prepared for the unexpected, etc. The idea that the government can make us secure is in order to make people more dependent upon government.
Somewhat like Bill Gates who stole the idea for GUI and windows from Zerox and Zuckerman who stole the idea of "social media" from his roommate. You can find countless examples in which so-called "innovators" got their ideas from someone else and merely beat them to the punch. Kind of contemporary high speed trading, people manipulating stock prices before the average trader has a chance to move on a trade.
As William Black (author) once wrote; The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One. And get away with it I might add.
Unfortunately, in all (un) civilized societies there are people who feel they can do whatever they want. Take the licensing of vehicles. Licensing is not merely a way for state governments to extract fees. It's also a means of identifying the vehicle. Why is that necessary? Ask yourself how many vehicle accidents there are everyday. Then ask how many of those accidents involve a hit and run. Which happened to me a couple years ago. Had it not been for an identifying plate on the vehicle the driver may very well got away with it. But a witness to the accident got the plate number. Problem solved. One thing "libertarians" like to ignore are personal protections from those individuals in society who are anti-social, irresponsible and just plain narcissistic. My experience with libertarians gives me a distinct impression that it wouldn't take much for them to become anarchists. Creating a society that is a free-for-all and one based upon "survival of the fittest". That's fine if one wants a society structured like the Klingon. But I'm not too convinced most human beings really want that.
In the game of life do we prioritize technical accomplishment or moral character? The fact that the world (which in large part has adopted western economic values) loves to worship the extreme achievers as opposed to their moral character is a main ingredient in the crumbling of the global social contract. I have far more respect for a person who possess a respect for their fellow homo sapiens than I do for an inventor/business person who is obsessed with wealth, power, fame and their own ego. Being a good business person does not scale equally with being a person of solid character and morality. Just saying.
FORTY years ago holding businesses more accountable was probably a more realistic scenario. Back then it was mostly large institutions and the wealthy who were playing the markets and were willing to assume some risk. However, since the 1980s and the advent of IRAs, Deferred Compensation, day trading, personal computers, portfolio management software, the industry promotion of the idea of retirement planning on an individual basis as opposed to defined benefit retirement plans, etc. the pool of investors are no longer the mere wealthy and institutions. Now, half the individual people in the U.S., Europe, etc. are potential victims when big business is penalized, leaders jailed and companies fined or shutdown. And what would those investors do when their holdings are taken from them? Call their elected officials and threaten not to vote for them if they loose all their savings. In other words, everyone, even the little guy, have their fingers in the pie making punishing business more of a political hot potato.
Uninformed will of the people. In other words... "the market is stupid".
Ludicrous. Making light of the destructive capabilities of a vehicle is evidence of blatant bias. Regardless of any "intent" of an apparatus, it's the end result that matters. Statistically, vehicles kill and maim more people every year in the U.S. than firearms. Your also assuming that the mature of an apparatus dictates its uses. Just because a vehicle is intended to transport does not necessarily it is utilized responsibly and safely. Drivers ignore school zones more often than firearms owners ignore the safe handling if their weapons. Drivers ignore speed limits and driving conditions far more often than (legal) firearms owners ignore the laws governing the handing and use of deadly force with firearms. In the book More Guns Less Crime" the authors demonstrates that firearms injuries and deaths are exaggerated, overblown and embellished compared to injuries incurred by vehicles and other means. Nationwide statistics bear out and have always bore out that deaths and injuries caused by licensed firearms owners are (and have been) below 1%. All things being equal, licensed firearms owners (and homes for that matter) are no more likely to be struck by violent tragedy than households that own vehicles. In fact families are more likely to be struck by (vehicle) violence than are homes with firearms. Are you willing to give up your motor vehicles (including motorcycles) for fear of being killed? If not, why not? You're more likely to die in a vehicle accident than in the home of a licensed gun owner. And if your not, you position is mere hypocrisy.
That's a hopelessly narcissistic view of self defense. It completely ignores situations and individual circumstances in which being (legally) armed makes complete sense. For example in the case of those who have physical limitations and/or the elderly. Oh, wait, how about I politely ask a perpetrator to cease their actions while I punch up 911. There are many people who don't have the capacity to run away from needlessly aggressive anti-social Neanderthals. I myself have encountered them in public. Some if them are willing to crush your face in just because they don't like the way someone looks at them. Usually they're in the 18 - 35 year age group. Punks that think they are "all that". They're more plentiful than one would normally believe until something happens.
A friend of mine has been actively managing his own stick portfolio for twenty years. He's invested thousands in software over the years he uses to execute trades. After years of "playing the market" he told me a couple years ago that he thought the market "was rigged somehow". It seemed to him that many times he found a good prospective investment, someone else always beat him to it and prices would increase before he had a chance to make his trades. Something seemed fishy to him. Well ... now I know his instincts were on the ball (and so does he). Doesn't surprise me though. That's the way capitalism works - find some way to fuck the other guy and make more for yourself. The markets are completely amoral. There is no moral basis to capitalism.
How about ... it's better to keep an "innocent" person in prison than to execute an innocent person? Guilty people (those who are clearly guilty, admit they are guilty and all evidence supports their guilt) deserve to forfeit their life for the life(s) they took. Otherwise there is no such thing as "justice".
Capital punishment certainly is a deterrent to those executed. There have been numerous cases where murders were released from prison (a decade or two later) and they killed again. The death penalty would've prevented those subsequent murders. So... it us a deterrent.
The state doesn't wantonly execute people for no reason, like many murders do. There's no equitable comparison there. The state only acts in response to individual acts that demonstrate certain people are not capable of peaceful coexistence with other human beings by wantonly taking other people's lives.
There's nothing in the definition of "punishment" that excludes "killing". And the denial of continued life certainly is a form of punishment. It may be the most extreme form of punishment. But it's punishment just the same. Punishment by definition is the act of denying someone something they want or taking something they want away from them - period. Many will claim that capital punishment is never warranted because of the imperfections if the justice system. But to the extent that a particular perpetrator can clearly be identified by a combination of voluntary guilty pleas and factual evidence, then capital punishment may very well be an equitable punishment for maliciously taking someone else's life. And at the very least, for those who are clearly guilty, it saves society from the cost of housing those individuals for the rest of their natural lives. It frees up over crowded prison space and provides some sense of justice for survivors. The real injustice, at least in cases in which the guilty is clearly guilty, is the fact that survivors have to wait decades for the justice system to exhaust the appeal process.
To some extent I'd probably agree. But the reverse is "true" also. That is, an entirely private infrastructure has the same structure of disincentives. That being "profit" and returns to investors. So private companies have an incentive to not invest in infrastructure as well. Take for example telecommunications in the U.S. By industry standards (worldwide) the U.S. telecommunications infrastructure is at least five years BEHIND Europe in broadband coverage. And the main reason for that is the profit motive. It's more lucrative to not make the necessary investments when everyone is forced into the same (relatively slow) broadband market. The only reason broadband is being expanded is because Congress has mandated the upgrading of the telecom services and coverage areas. And that for the most part has been the case in many arms of the U.S. infrastructure; the forcing of corporations to meet certain minimum standards. In other words, profit is the sole consideration in infrastructure development. Thus, you have the same end result. Either government is considered too inefficient or corporations are too efficient at least when infrastructure is gauged by cost/benefit analysis.
For one, cell phone use requires (at least for most users) hands-on manipulation that often requires taking your attention off the road. It also oftentimes requires the manipulation of equipment not directly related to safe driving (i.e. taking your hands of the wheel, etc.). Most people can keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel while talking to another passenger. Although it would be a good practice to not even engage in conversation at all while driving because any conversation is distracting. We should remember the purpose of driving is to get from one destination to another in a reduced amount of time and more conveniently. But it is not a "right". It's incumbent upon operators to operate moving vehicles safely and responsibly. That is the prime directive of motor vehicle operation.
Couldn't agree more. It's sickening though the fact that most people don't seem to care one iota whether or not they are being manipulated like automatons. Most people seem to even revel in the fact that someone is thinking for them and using data and demographics to get you to do things one wouldn't normally so. Such as spend money they don't possess or own. Take for example Americans. They are the biggest debtors on the planet. And that includes the conservatives, the (Ron) Paulines, the Tea Partiers, etc.
I couldn't concur more. Americans (especially those under 50) have been so brainwashed over the past few decades, ever since Reagan kept pounding into everyone's heads how great Americans (and by default Americans) are. After all, America has a "manifest (manifesto comparable to the 1917 Communist manifesto) destiny". "The greatest country in the world." Putin was right when he stated in his NY Times op-ed (Sept 2013) that it is morally wrong to tell a country they are superior to anyone else in the world. It is human nature to take such ideologies to heart and begin thinking you actually ARE superior to everyone else. But that is wrong, arrogant, belittling of others and narcissistic. Americans used to possess a sense of humility that respected other peoples and recognized other cultures on par with its own. That becomes very difficult to do when it's pounded into your head all the time "how great thou art." Interestingly, I think that shift in self-importance correlates with the rise of fundamentalist Christianity and predatory capitalism in America.
The "privacy in public, being a contradiction" is not only naïve but draconian as well. Do we really want to be surveilling ourselves? Filming or recording events doesn't necessarily solve anything. With all the photo and video editing software on the market, it's no big effort to edit video to our own advantage. Even if everyone agreed to record everything said and done, it still doesn't mean words, phrases, body language etc. couldn't be misinterpreted by a third party. Even today, that is generally recognized in legal and administrative procedures. I know it is highly unusual in labor/management negotiations (for example) for there to be recording of the proceedings. Why? It doesn't necessarily guarantee the whose interpretation of discussions takes precedence. It's just as easy for labor or management to assert what was said or done (even when recorded) is being misinterpreted. All things considered, recording an event doesn't necessarily "prove" anything. Ultimately, recording everything will merely result in a false sense of security or "rightness" AND make social intercourse more intimidating and suspect. Need we be concerned about EVERYTHING we say to anyone else no matter where we are? If so, what you propose is truly Orwellian and I suspect would ultimately lead to a breakdown of social cohesion and the "social contract".
Improvements come from critical mass citizen action. I don't foresee any such thing happening in the U.S. The citizenry there is too divided over basic common sense values, apathy, ignorance and self-interest to form any critical mass for change such as like happened during the 1960's and 70's with public corruption, Vietnam, civil rights, etc..in which you could fund large crowds in the streets protesting. The millennial generation is so pre-occupied with their "toys" (XBoxes, smart phones, laptops/tablets, reality TV, etc.) they don't know (or have the motivation) to actually step outside their door to demonstrate their pissed. Sure there's "social media" people can bitch on. But that's not anywhere equivalent to making the effort to move a body into the streets. Face-to-face confrontation means something far more significant than a faceless or potentially phony name on the internet. Reaching people is only the first step in social change. Real change involves taking on the task of direct challenges. And that doesn't happen much anymore.