Then the solution is not to have shoddy enforcement of the laws (which weakens the whole legal system), but instead rewrite the laws to be less strict.
In quite a few cases just get rid of some laws.
I used this same argument in regards to speeding laws, which thanks to cameras means more people are getting ticketed.
Because it's easy to build a machine to detect the speed of a vehicle.
I argue the solution is not shoddy enforcement, but instead raise the limit to a higher number from 65 to 75 for example, so fewer people get ticketed.
A problem with "speed limit" is that what is and isn't a safe speed can vary depending on conditions. e.g. between empty dry road in daylight and busy icy road in fog. It's also possible for someone to be driving dangerously below the speed limit. IIRC it dosn't really matter if someone is driving the average traffic speed above or below the average traffic speed.
(Besides 75 is what the interstate engineers recommended in the first place... politicians need to listen to engineers, not ignore them.)
The laws were written with an understanding that there wouldn't be 100% enforcement. The police would catch the worst cases, and let people off sometime.
In some cases "most of the time" (even "all of the time").
If every law were enforced fully, you would be surprised how oppressive it could be. You probably break the law a dozen time a day without realizing it.
In most places enforcing every law would be a practical impossibility. So what you'd tend to end up with would be those which are easiest to enforce being the most enforced. Which would be a very bad thing when you consider that the "worst cases" don't tend to be easily enforcable.
For those who think CCTVs are not effective, just look at how many speeders and red-light drivers get caught by cameras, and are issued automatic tickets/fines.
However they can't identify bad drivers and take them off the road before they cause harm.
I think you're either greatly over estimating the cost of a police officer or greatly underestimating the cost of installing, maintaining and monitoring videos.
There's also the issue of the "deterent value" of police, especially if their patrolling is fairly random, vs cameras.
On the other hand when a cop sees someone commit a crime he can arrest him on the spot, all a CCTV camera can do is watch, unless of course the person happens to be wearing something that obscures his face or a headband studded with IR LEDs. In which case your camera is useless.
These techniques being ineffective against a cop. In addition cops come with these things called ears...
You mean like when a cop used his cellphone to take pictures of a young teen woman whose head was popped-open like a grape after her car slammed into a tollbooth, and then leaked those images to the press?
Rather easier to identify the person responsible in this case than if the pictures had come from a CCTV system though.
London Underground is full of cameras. How many captured anything on the day Jean Charles de Menezes was shot and killed?
Initially it was claimed that non of the cameras at the station were working. Indeed the police repeatedly changed their story and their claims were disputed by just about every witness. Those involved appear to have literally "got away with murder".At the recent G20 protests in London where the police "kettling" tactic was widely criticised and hundreds of complaints about police behaviour resulted, how much evidence from CCTV has been produced to show the police acting reasonably? Compared with how much amateur footage shot with mobile phones and the like?
Also a bystander was assaulted by a police officer and died. This would appear to fit the definition of "manslaughter". If the assault had been by a member of the public they would no doubt have had their identity splashed across the media, been arrested and charged. Some time later two police dogs died in a car, already been annonced that the police officer responsible would be prosecuted. It now appears to be the case, at least in the UK, that if you are going to get killed by a police officer it's better to be a dog than a human!
Exactly the same information the government finds when it attaches a police officer to your house to monitor your activities and follow you around. The ability to spy on you has not changed - they've always had this capability.
In practice it would probably be at least three police officers. The cost, both in terms of money and time, of doing this means that it's only likely to happen if where there is a very good reason to do so. There just are not enough police to follow more than a small number of people around in this way.
There have been cases of peaceful protesters being stopped and searched because a camera captured their car number/license plate at a demonstration and entered it in to a database of known "trouble makers". A policeman would (hopefully) have had the sense to see that their car need not be tracked,
There's also the issue that mechanically putting a numberplate into a database and tracking (via ANPR) is a lot easier than having people do this manually. If something is very easy it is far more likely to be abused. Especially if there are no consequences for misuse.
I have read more than a few stories about police taking action against people who are filming them, and complaints about how the police don't want to be recorded so they can get away with abusing the public, etc.
So....do all these cameras keep the police in line, too?
The police force mentioned in the original article is the same one who managed to get away with gunning down an innocent member of the public in a part of London very well covered by CCTV.
Practically all "legal drugs" at some time were illegal. And if we legalize e.g. marijuana then that too enters the realm of legal drugs...
Similarly many now illegal drugs have at some point in the past been perfectly legal.
What you need to look at is why drug A is legal and drug B is illegal. In general it comes down to "legal is what the lawmakers use" - there is no medical reason why alcohol spirits should be legal, and just as strong arguments for legalizing marijuana as e.g. red wine.
The legal status of a drug typically has nothing at all to do with pharmacology. Legal drugs such as paracetamol (acetaminophen) are more dangerous than many things which are illegal. It would also make sense to call nicotine a "legal hard drug"...
So a "trusted editor" or two with a political agenda can control the major source of information on a particular subject which is apparently referenced by journalists and academics (although of course it shouldn't be), probably comes up as the first result on google etc.
People with political agendas are likely to be more able to find (or make) the time to promote their views anyway. Depending exactly how "trusted editor" status is given it's quite possible to end up with positive feedback towards certain political positions.
If anything, this makes me less inclined to trust the information in wikipedia than when it was free for all and errors could be easily added and just as easily removed.
There's also a problem if something which is controversial is being portrayed as non controversial.
Pressurized hydrogen is certainly stored, its used as a welding gas and shipped in cylinders all over the place all the time. -Liquid- hydrogen is very difficult to handle compared to propane or gasoline.
In many cases what you have in the container is a liquid, at least with a full container. Putting a gas under pressure can cause it to change state, which is also why you may have to cool the bottles whilst filling them. The easiest way to see this is with a clear plastic butane lighter, since butane does not need that high a pressure to liquify at normal temperatures.
I used to do that (in Auckland, NZ) from my work mobile, whenever I visited the head office about once a month. Tremendously convenient, well worth the extra 50 cents. One day it didn't work, instead a TXT came back saying my mobile couldn't do that anymore.
Turns out the Accounts department didn't like me doing that, and cancelled it without telling me. Apparently they'd rather I fill out an expense claim, get it signed by my manager, than fax it to accounts, at which stage they'd credit it to me again. For two dollars, every month (man of principle, etc.)
Wonder if they'd have been happy if you (and your manager) had had claimed for the additional time as well:)
We need special technical trials for things like this within which both the defence and prosecution are allowed to bring in technical witnesses to put the case into perspective for non-technical people (as opposed to "HACKER! Get the pitch forks!").
It's already possible to bring in such people, they are known as "expert witnesses". The issue here is more the lack of a prompt trial. Maybe what's needed is a rule along the lines that someone is automatically found "not guilty" if their trial does not start within a certain time of their being charged.
Legalization would reduce the price of drugs and reduce crime. It would allow maintenance and treatment. And it would probably not increase drug usage any more; anybody who wants to use drugs is already using.
It might well mean more users, but less abusers. Prohibition changes how drugs are available. e.g. in 1920's US black market alcohol tended to be crude spirits. Which is very different from the choices available before and after.
The same laws that apply to alcohol should apply to heroin and other drugs. Adults may damage themselves all they want, but keep it away from juveniles.
Shouldn't the same apply to driving. After all cars kill and injure far more people compared with any drug. But people considerably younger than 21 are able to drive in the US. If anything it would make far more sense to have people able to drink at 15 and not drive til they were 21 (possibly older if they were already identified as "problem drinkers").
there's enough problems with legal drugs like alcohol, why do you people keep insisting the answer is MORE drugs?!?!
Apparently some people didn't learn anything from the "experiment" of alcohol prohibition in the US. The choice is more between drugs supplied by an unregulated black market comprising of well armed criminal gangs and drugs supplied by regular businesses.
I'm fine with your proposal as long as all of the supporters of free drug use are forced to live in the druggie parts of town.
Which is going to be rather easier than living in the none "druggie" areas. The point of ending drug prohibition is that all the currently illegal drugs become treated just like all the currently legal drugs.
Actually if you read the article they claim most of these accounts are started using credit fraud. Last I looked, you don't make money when you are a victim of fraud.
It could even wind up costing you money, due to transaction costs.
Per DotyEnergy, who has a nearly identical process backed by more than 60 patents, and who I am certain the navy has not licensed it from,
Plenty of times in the past patents which got in the way of the military have been revoked. Even without the "national security" trump card the USN has plenty of lawyers too.
Civilian uses don't seem likely. Bio diesel uses more efficient processes to convert CO2 in the atmosphere to useable fuels. The work on GM algae that directly excrete usable fuels is very interesting.
Speed of production and physical size may also be an issue. Something designed to fit in a ship will be reasonably compact. In many parts of the world expanding airports is difficult. Producing fuel elsewhere needs pipelines and/or tankers. I was thinking of airports such as Kansai.
Slashdot Mirror
Just the head. His hand is still black. Maybe they just hired Michael Jackson...?
Or possibly even the wrong Michael Jackson. They actually wanted Michael A Jackson...
Then the solution is not to have shoddy enforcement of the laws (which weakens the whole legal system), but instead rewrite the laws to be less strict.
:)
In quite a few cases just get rid of some laws.
I used this same argument in regards to speeding laws, which thanks to cameras means more people are getting ticketed.
Because it's easy to build a machine to detect the speed of a vehicle.
I argue the solution is not shoddy enforcement, but instead raise the limit to a higher number from 65 to 75 for example, so fewer people get ticketed.
A problem with "speed limit" is that what is and isn't a safe speed can vary depending on conditions. e.g. between empty dry road in daylight and busy icy road in fog. It's also possible for someone to be driving dangerously below the speed limit. IIRC it dosn't really matter if someone is driving the average traffic speed above or below the average traffic speed.
(Besides 75 is what the interstate engineers recommended in the first place... politicians need to listen to engineers, not ignore them.)
Would politicians egos allow them to do this
The laws were written with an understanding that there wouldn't be 100% enforcement. The police would catch the worst cases, and let people off sometime.
In some cases "most of the time" (even "all of the time").
If every law were enforced fully, you would be surprised how oppressive it could be. You probably break the law a dozen time a day without realizing it.
In most places enforcing every law would be a practical impossibility. So what you'd tend to end up with would be those which are easiest to enforce being the most enforced. Which would be a very bad thing when you consider that the "worst cases" don't tend to be easily enforcable.
For those who think CCTVs are not effective, just look at how many speeders and red-light drivers get caught by cameras, and are issued automatic tickets/fines.
However they can't identify bad drivers and take them off the road before they cause harm.
I think you're either greatly over estimating the cost of a police officer or greatly underestimating the cost of installing, maintaining and monitoring videos.
There's also the issue of the "deterent value" of police, especially if their patrolling is fairly random, vs cameras.
On the other hand when a cop sees someone commit a crime he can arrest him on the spot, all a CCTV camera can do is watch, unless of course the person happens to be wearing something that obscures his face or a headband studded with IR LEDs. In which case your camera is useless.
These techniques being ineffective against a cop. In addition cops come with these things called ears...
You mean like when a cop used his cellphone to take pictures of a young teen woman whose head was popped-open like a grape after her car slammed into a tollbooth, and then leaked those images to the press?
Rather easier to identify the person responsible in this case than if the pictures had come from a CCTV system though.
London Underground is full of cameras. How many captured anything on the day Jean Charles de Menezes was shot and killed?
Initially it was claimed that non of the cameras at the station were working. Indeed the police repeatedly changed their story and their claims were disputed by just about every witness. Those involved appear to have literally "got away with murder".At the recent G20 protests in London where the police "kettling" tactic was widely criticised and hundreds of complaints about police behaviour resulted, how much evidence from CCTV has been produced to show the police acting reasonably? Compared with how much amateur footage shot with mobile phones and the like?
Also a bystander was assaulted by a police officer and died. This would appear to fit the definition of "manslaughter". If the assault had been by a member of the public they would no doubt have had their identity splashed across the media, been arrested and charged. Some time later two police dogs died in a car, already been annonced that the police officer responsible would be prosecuted. It now appears to be the case, at least in the UK, that if you are going to get killed by a police officer it's better to be a dog than a human!
Exactly the same information the government finds when it attaches a police officer to your house to monitor your activities and follow you around. The ability to spy on you has not changed - they've always had this capability.
In practice it would probably be at least three police officers. The cost, both in terms of money and time, of doing this means that it's only likely to happen if where there is a very good reason to do so.
There just are not enough police to follow more than a small number of people around in this way.
There have been cases of peaceful protesters being stopped and searched because a camera captured their car number/license plate at a demonstration and entered it in to a database of known "trouble makers". A policeman would (hopefully) have had the sense to see that their car need not be tracked,
There's also the issue that mechanically putting a numberplate into a database and tracking (via ANPR) is a lot easier than having people do this manually. If something is very easy it is far more likely to be abused. Especially if there are no consequences for misuse.
I have read more than a few stories about police taking action against people who are filming them, and complaints about how the police don't want to be recorded so they can get away with abusing the public, etc.
So....do all these cameras keep the police in line, too?
The police force mentioned in the original article is the same one who managed to get away with gunning down an innocent member of the public in a part of London very well covered by CCTV.
Practically all "legal drugs" at some time were illegal. And if we legalize e.g. marijuana then that too enters the realm of legal drugs...
Similarly many now illegal drugs have at some point in the past been perfectly legal.
What you need to look at is why drug A is legal and drug B is illegal. In general it comes down to "legal is what the lawmakers use" - there is no medical reason why alcohol spirits should be legal, and just as strong arguments for legalizing marijuana as e.g. red wine.
The legal status of a drug typically has nothing at all to do with pharmacology. Legal drugs such as paracetamol (acetaminophen) are more dangerous than many things which are illegal. It would also make sense to call nicotine a "legal hard drug"...
So a "trusted editor" or two with a political agenda can control the major source of information on a particular subject which is apparently referenced by journalists and academics (although of course it shouldn't be), probably comes up as the first result on google etc.
People with political agendas are likely to be more able to find (or make) the time to promote their views anyway. Depending exactly how "trusted editor" status is given it's quite possible to end up with positive feedback towards certain political positions.
If anything, this makes me less inclined to trust the information in wikipedia than when it was free for all and errors could be easily added and just as easily removed.
There's also a problem if something which is controversial is being portrayed as non controversial.
Pressurized hydrogen is certainly stored, its used as a welding gas and shipped in cylinders all over the place all the time. -Liquid- hydrogen is very difficult to handle compared to propane or gasoline.
In many cases what you have in the container is a liquid, at least with a full container. Putting a gas under pressure can cause it to change state, which is also why you may have to cool the bottles whilst filling them.
The easiest way to see this is with a clear plastic butane lighter, since butane does not need that high a pressure to liquify at normal temperatures.
Not saying it couldn't work nicely as a propellant for use on the moon or asteroids, where water ice and recoverable aluminum could be found.
It's the latter bit which is the problem. You just don't tend to find highly reactive metals in their elemental state.
Thermite could too.
For a rocket you want gas rather than liquid...
I used to do that (in Auckland, NZ) from my work mobile, whenever I visited the head office about once a month. Tremendously convenient, well worth the extra 50 cents. One day it didn't work, instead a TXT came back saying my mobile couldn't do that anymore.
:)
Turns out the Accounts department didn't like me doing that, and cancelled it without telling me. Apparently they'd rather I fill out an expense claim, get it signed by my manager, than fax it to accounts, at which stage they'd credit it to me again. For two dollars, every month (man of principle, etc.)
Wonder if they'd have been happy if you (and your manager) had had claimed for the additional time as well
We need special technical trials for things like this within which both the defence and prosecution are allowed to bring in technical witnesses to put the case into perspective for non-technical people (as opposed to "HACKER! Get the pitch forks!").
It's already possible to bring in such people, they are known as "expert witnesses". The issue here is more the lack of a prompt trial. Maybe what's needed is a rule along the lines that someone is automatically found "not guilty" if their trial does not start within a certain time of their being charged.
Legalization would reduce the price of drugs and reduce crime. It would allow maintenance and treatment. And it would probably not increase drug usage any more; anybody who wants to use drugs is already using.
It might well mean more users, but less abusers. Prohibition changes how drugs are available. e.g. in 1920's US black market alcohol tended to be crude spirits. Which is very different from the choices available before and after.
How do you figure drugs are everywhere? I know who my neighbours are, and I know they don't do drugs.
So they are all non smoking teetotallers who never drink coffee or eat chocolate? You must live in a very strange place...
The same laws that apply to alcohol should apply to heroin and other drugs. Adults may damage themselves all they want, but keep it away from juveniles.
Shouldn't the same apply to driving. After all cars kill and injure far more people compared with any drug. But people considerably younger than 21 are able to drive in the US. If anything it would make far more sense to have people able to drink at 15 and not drive til they were 21 (possibly older if they were already identified as "problem drinkers").
there's enough problems with legal drugs like alcohol, why do you people keep insisting the answer is MORE drugs?!?!
Apparently some people didn't learn anything from the "experiment" of alcohol prohibition in the US. The choice is more between drugs supplied by an unregulated black market comprising of well armed criminal gangs and drugs supplied by regular businesses.
I'm fine with your proposal as long as all of the supporters of free drug use are forced to live in the druggie parts of town.
Which is going to be rather easier than living in the none "druggie" areas. The point of ending drug prohibition is that all the currently illegal drugs become treated just like all the currently legal drugs.
Actually if you read the article they claim most of these accounts are started using credit fraud. Last I looked, you don't make money when you are a victim of fraud.
It could even wind up costing you money, due to transaction costs.
Per DotyEnergy, who has a nearly identical process backed by more than 60 patents, and who I am certain the navy has not licensed it from,
Plenty of times in the past patents which got in the way of the military have been revoked. Even without the "national security" trump card the USN has plenty of lawyers too.
Civilian uses don't seem likely. Bio diesel uses more efficient processes to convert CO2 in the atmosphere to useable fuels. The work on GM algae that directly excrete usable fuels is very interesting.
Speed of production and physical size may also be an issue. Something designed to fit in a ship will be reasonably compact. In many parts of the world expanding airports is difficult. Producing fuel elsewhere needs pipelines and/or tankers. I was thinking of airports such as Kansai.