Nature has spent a very long time honing the human gene pool (at least 6000 years by even the most limited world view). Medical science has only really been around for 50 or so years (on a wide enough basis to make any significant difference). Sure, we might have a wider gene pool (by keeping alive people that would not naturally be around) but quality is extremely important. The "selection" part of natural selection just is not happening any more. You miss the biology. What is quality? the ability to survive and have kids who survive and have kids. There is no other criteria in selection. Be it 300 lb behemoths of a person or a 5'7 hot blond haired blue eyed ex-ballerina with a phd with a substantial trust fund. The quality in regards to evolution is only dependent on your survival to reproductive age and number of children you have that also survive and reproduce etc.. Thus you (presumably techno savy, presumably slightly over weight and of slightly above average intelligence) will have the same evolutionary value as low IQ extremely over weight, and non techno savy person with the same number of children and generally same income bracket. The criteria you brought up do not exist.
Most survival improving mutations do not make you superman. For instance i posses a mutation that is deleterious if you inherit it form both parents, it lowers the amout of oxygen available in my system and lowers my resistance to most disease however it makes me immune to malaria. Thus because malaria is such a enormous selective factor in the last thousand generations in the area i am from, I had a higher survival value despite being unable to run marathons, and get sick more easily. It's impossible to predict what exactly will have that kind of survival value. You may select for disease resistants, highly intelligence, blonde hair and blue eyed ubermenchen and one day a virulent virus that only kills smart people wipes out the whole lot. Having a wider pool means having more mutations and more diversity so that when the selective force appears you are statistically more likely to have protection against it.
The selection part is happening in a more subtle way. The actual selection is controversial. It may be we're selecting for dumber, more promiscuous, and more numerous people or we're selecting for people who have traits that make money or attract sexual partners. Hard to tell. But we're physically changing. We've been getting taller for a century. It may not be all about nutrition. Taller men of all economic groups tend to get laid more, thus have more tall children.
Natural selection tries to weed out a huge % of the population, but medical science overrides it.
Nature determines that weak and premature infants should die, yet they are kept alive and become adults. Nature determines that some adults should not be breeding, yet fertility drugs override this. Nature determines that various people should die by heart failure etc, but drugs keep them alive.
Sure, these are all good from the emotional point of view of keeping people alive and making childless couples happy etc, but does it really help the human gene pool? Perhaps Mother Nature had a good reason to kill off a weak child or prevent that infertile couple from breeding. The long term impacts can only be known in a few generations. Right now the genetic diversity pool is getting wider. Once some sort of selective factor is introduced (ie. aliens that eat only people under 250 lbs), it is better to have a wider more diverse gene pool to increase the probability the genes to survive the selective factor exist (ie. genes that encourage people to be fat). It's not as black and white as you suggest although I agree the end long term result is unknowable.
It doesn't matter if we evolve, because we change the environment around us as opposed to adapting to it. Therefore evolution has been irrelevant as a factor of survival since humans learned to use tools. It's difficult to adopt tools for most terminal mutations.
No there is not. Unless you're able to see each of the frames displayed by second, which I doubt. Let me guess, you have a HDTV, right? The only lag seen usually comes from the TV processing. So you have it backwards actually: the more precise your controller is, the more you will detect the lag induced by your HDTV processing. The only time I saw lag on my TV was with the Wii on my HDTV, which now I play in game mode, and I don't see any lag anymore. I got my HDTV after the Wii, and never had any lag on the old CRT one. And keep in mind that my HDTV was advertised with 5 ms refresh, so as most HDTV are advertised for worse, even in game mode, I'm sure they're still laggy. The lag is not present with a 360 nor my PS3 so no it is not in fact my TV. (6ms)
The sole thing on which I agree is the "more intuitive to learn" part, which is the main goal of controllers on consoles. So the Wiimote + Nunchuk combo wins hands down. Then, precision is better with the Nunchuk than with a keyboard, which should be obvious to you, as the Nunchuk has an analog controller, that keyboard doesn't have, and the Nunchuk is designed to be operated easily without looking at it, while the keyboard is not. The only way in which the Wiimote loses to the mouse, is precision, and not by much, but as it's on the Wii, which doesn't have high resolution like on a PC to begin with, this point is moot, for now at least. WASD is basically been burned into my skull for over a decade. It is every bit as precise as the nunchuk due entirely to how ham fisted many console games are with controls. I've noticed lag in RE4, Rayman, Zelda:TP, have yet to play metroid 3.
There's no doubt Wiimote+Nunchuck beats the keyboard part of mouse+keyboard. Precision moving and jumping is far easier with an analog stick than with a keyboard. If like me you rarely play FPS games, the Wiimote is easier to use than a mouse. But my gut feeling is over time, the mouse would be slightly easier to be precise with as it's on a flat surface rather than being held in the air. I strenuously reject this statement. The wiimote + nunchuk are on par for some things but a magnitude worse for responsiveness. there is a notable lag between action of the mote and action on screen. partly due to the wi fi partly due to the slowness of the motion sensors. Given a choice I'd go KB+mouse 100% of the time. Metroid 3, Zelda, Rayman et al have not shown any promise that the wiimote will be better then kb + mouse. Wiimote+chuk is better then dual sticks of course. The wiimote and chuk only beats the keyboard and mouse in catagory: more intuitive to learn. Other then that WASD+mouse has it beat in every way.
The wiimote is closest to PC out of any of the consoles, when it comes to FPS control - and even it is, at most, only half as awesome as a kb/mouse combo. I have to agree, the wii mote has a significant lag. It's not so much as a Keyboard and mouse replacement as it is a very poor light gun.
Fortunately I don't use my wii or PS3 as a PC replacement. I use them to play games that don't make it to the PC like R&T future or Fire emblem Radiant dawn.
And you assume the quick procedures are doing anything more than hiding it from you? Need i be subject to 2 verifications of information, being forwarded through 3 people. 2 of which ask for exactly the same information and a 30 day delay to remove a credit card? I don't think it's merely hiding the details. They made an intentional choice to make removing hard. A while ago I worked for a regional telecom in the call center, we took CC for pre-authorized payment. to remove it you need 1 piece of strong ID like driver licence if on account, account number if they had it, sin if on account, of the actual card number, or billing details. Only one person required to do this, it was removed right away. MS asked for gamertag, CC, expiry, email, phone number, and address. They would no proceed without all of it. They required it twice because the first person fully documented it then passed to a manager who documented it again. Both informed me of a 30 day delay.
When removing your card it is not available for further purchase but you may add it again anytime on both the Wii and PSN. On live it's still active for 30 days, making a purchase within will negate the removal. Changing your gamer tag, email, phone number, or address will negate the request to remove the CC. They made those choices. It isn't simply more verbose because their are being dutiful in informing me. They are being verbose to discourage me from leaving. I object to the whole ordeal and the suspected motive.
Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid; if you want to accept Visa, Mastercard... any cards that exist, basically, they'll want a cut and will take fees. Then there's the infrastructure cost of setting up a whole damn bank... no, makes far more sense than selling points in blocks of 500.;)
Anyway, banks are bad enough without Microsoft running one...:P Actually Visa/MC take a percentage, and with the small family Chinese food place we owned there was no min charge. Thus $4.00 = $0.20 fee. $400.00 = $20.00 fee. The rounding might affect things since they tend to round up but the % taken is off of our total monthly and not individual transaction. So MS is talking out there ass unless they signed a really retarded deal with Visa/MC.
E-commerce does vary and does have many per transaction set ups but I fail to believe MS would not have a more preferable contract.
Live has the worst online transaction set up of all three. The PSN and Wii networks are 3 clicks to remove your CC. The live network is a 30 minute call followed by a 30 day delay to unhook your Credit Card from your xbox/360. They require passwords, emails used, gamer tag, you CC#, and it's expiry date. It's asinine. You may replace your card more easily but to actually remove one requires too many hoops to jump. Where as the PSN and Wii allow you to simply remove it form the account without needing to call, and it's removed instantly. They actually required me to speak with a call center manager to remove my card. After that I will not consider buying anything from the live network again. No membership, no games, nothing.
Is that for sex offenses or any offenses, and how does it break down between rapists and kiddy diddlers? Arrest or conviction on any future sex crime within the span of study for all sex crime categories, including kiddy diddlers, roofie-colada bar tenders, Flashers, violently over aggressive boy friends etc...
generally adult-victim-rapists are below 50% while kiddy diddlers are above while flashers are far above.
No it isn't, you just gave bad information. Worse, not only are you repeating bad information, but you are leaving things essential important things.
Here is MY source: "Hanson and Bussière (1998) report that only a minority (13.4%) of their total sample of 23,393 subjects from their meta-analysis committed a new offense within the average 4- to 5-year follow-up period. Even with studies with thorough record searches and follow-up periods of 15 to 20 years, the recidivism rate never exceeded 40%." instead of retyping
Your still using short term numbers. all long term studies place it very high. Also comparing career criminals and patty crime to serious offense sis also silly. The recidivisms rate for murder is estimated to be 1.2% after release in the short term 3-5 years. For violent crime, unfortunately most statistics include sex crimes so I can't provide a number. But petty crimes have extremely high recidivisms while murder does not. this suggest violent re-offences may be as low as 10% without including sex offenders. Thus your contrasting a low impact crime (petty theft) to a high impact crime(sex crime) and drawing conclusions.
Violent crimes such as murder and assault outside the family tend to be a "young man's" crime. The recidivism rate for murder tends to be quite low, in part due to the long sentences and in part due to "aging out" of testosterone-laden anger.
Family violence and for that matter sex with live-in children tends to go down if the person is not living with anyone after release. Duh.
How are the statistics affected by such factors as stable employment, stability of housing, stable family life, availability of affordable, no-stigma-attached psychological help, etc.? Today's "crucify them all" society increases the risk of recidivism by making pariahs out of those who need stability the most.
Some of the highest-recidivism rates are things that are not enforced much. I bet 99% of people who have ever gotten a ticket for speeding committed a similar crime within a month of paying their fine and I bet 99% of them do it at least monthly if not daily. They just make sure they don't get caught. What would society look like if all convicted speeders had to put a speed-regulator on their car for the next 10 years and put a "convicted speeder" bumper-sticker on their car as part of their punishment? The roads would be a lot safer I'm sure, but I don't want to live in that world.. Generally, recidivisms (~30%-50% after 15) is lower then petty crime about the same as violent crime (substantial higher then murder which is ~1.2%). Certain classes have a far greater recidivisms (male non-incest pedophiles ~77% after 15 years which is higher then all but motor vehicle theft, and caught with stolen property). But it's contrasting career criminals with people with "deviant" sexual preferences or poor impulse control. It's not really the same.
Treatment helps a lot. Dropping the rates by 1/2. But some do not think they have a problem and do not want or seek treatment. Thus I think sentences ought to be indefinite unless they accept treatment. Because this type of crime can destroy a life.
Also, all rates are suspected to under estimates. For instance Karl Toft admitted to have molested over 200 boys during his lifetime while only 28 came forward to press charges.
U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics study: "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994" 5% of sex offenders followed for three years after their release from prison in 1994 were arrested for another sex crime. Repeated again in 2003 and found only 3.3% You really ought to look up the longer term stats. It's about ~50% after 30 years. In some classes of offenses it's as high as 77% after 15. 3 years, the punishment is still fresh. After 15 you go back to your old ways. Also sex crimes are under reported due to a lot of shame, blame the victim defenses, and the stress of bringing it all up again.
Can you cite a study for the "notorious recidivism?" It seems to be one of those "but everyone knows that...!" things. Common misconception. Confusing 3 year recidivisms rates with lifetime rates. google "sex crime recidivisms" Several studies will pop out. 3 year short term it's 5%-18%. 15-30 year rates rise to ~30%-50% dependingon criteria. Most studies also preface it with the warning "Sex crimes are often under reported due to issues with shame and other complications with the victim".
Take a look at the DOJ statistics for recidivism and sex offenders (easy way to get a good analysis is via the Skeptics magazine from earlier this year, it'll be on their webpage). Contrary to popular belief, sex offenders re-offend at a much lower rate than most other felonies.
But popular society right now has a lot invested in the idea that there's a pedophile behind every rock, so no one pays attention to the real numbers (since we're out of commies now, and terrorism is all wrapped up by Jack Bauer, this must be the "new thing" to worry about when we're not making PSAs about the "autism epidemic"). Short term studies put a fairly low ~14-18% number. Long term studies pin it at ~50%.
meta study ~39% for rapists ~53% for child molesters after 25 years
Variations are due to different criteria for re offenses. Some count only second convictions, others count second arrests. All note that this classification of crime is often under reported. Most of the long term studies point to a coin flip whether a person will do it again.
I somewhat agree. This law is designed to make the offender miserable for the rest of their lives... and while it does do exactly that very well, the law also punishes everyone else as well... by making a convicted felon's life miserable, you give them no other choice but to continue breaking the law. Recidivism
It seems, in the long run even given anonymity the rapist/child molester are 50/50 to do it one more time and get arrested for it. The meta study was done from various studies following people from 10-25 years. It also notes sex crimes are under reported so it may in fact be higher. This previous to any registry so it seems they are predisposed to it. Treatment seems very helpful. reducing recidivism from ~43% to ~18%.
Having dated a rape victim, I know it's not a light crime. It drastically changes a person. She spent some time in the hospital for the roofies the guy used. I don't think she reported it, instead other things happened to even the score. I'm uncertain if I agree with that but in a very primal way I'm glad he was directly punished.
I keep hearing about how wonderful Canada is, compared to their neighbor to the south, and then stuff like this happens which seems to show no regard for the common citizen at all! -Nom du Keyboard
You'll keep hearing wonderful things because we actually have a fairly highly motivated political class who more or less raises enough outrage to keep laws on the better side of sane. Sometimes it's an uphill battle though. I think this minority government wouldn't risk power over this. Hopefully they'll tone it down so much it won't be a threat or they'll ditch it. - me
I'm glad I was right. At least for the time being. I think it's spreading from the initial alarmist into more politically potent circles now. IT's exactly the sort of legislation Conservative supporters would be against. More importantly the "anybody but the liberals" crowd that brought the conservatives into power would suddenly change into the "anybody but the conservatives" crowd. I'm glad it's a minority government. Minority government seems to do the least damage.
Who says demand has to continue to increase? If we level-out on population growth and increase efficiency, demand will go down. Assume that technology will continue to develop ever-better methods of generating power, and I would guess our unit cost of energy goes down in the mid- to long-term future. The rate of growth has been slowing. We'll probably reach some sort of plateau at 10-12 bill.
What makes you so sure American plants are designed any better, or will be designed better in the future?
Just because we have safety regulations doesn't mean that safety regulations are followed. Because the Chernobyl reactor was an incredibly stupid design run by idiots. Most modern designs shut down when idiots go out of their way to mess with things. The worst western accident was a coolant leak. Event he Russians moved away from the same design as Chernobyl. Chernobyl was build liek a giant steam bomb with radioactive bits.
The rain stops too - but not everywhere at once. Neither does the wind. That's got to be one of the silliest arguments against wind. Oh, and the wind charges batteries, too.
More silliness - so what if little oil is burned for electricity? What does that have to do with wind vs nukes, or wind vs coal/gas? Nothing. OK, so that's probably lthe silliest argument.
Why don't you read the article to which I linked, before lying about wind's economy? It's written by an economist, with facts instead of pure silliness. The winds kinetic energy is finite. You can have wind farm everywhere or else there'd be little wind to power the interior ones. It's not a plausible alternative. Solar might be if we had high efficiency panels and blanketed almost all free non agro space with them. Although the change in albedo might be a bad side effect.
You don't need nuclear. You just need solar and wind power coupled with vanadium redox batteries. Vanadium is VERY common - almost as common as carbon. You set up huge warehouse sized batteries and charge 'em up. At night or when the wind is low or both, you let the batteries run. The loveliness of unintended consequences. Widespread Solar panel use will significantly change the albedo of earth, which may contribute to global warming as much or more then Fossil fuel burning. Thus you peachy agrarian solar fantasy might be more ecologically destructive then what we do now.
Sorry all you PR saps and admin assistants at hedge funds and nail salon operators. I would recommend you learn something useful, like FARMING. Or dismantling Las Vegas and Phoenix.
Until we slide down that far, though, I would recommend Vanadium redox/solar/wind combo. And DO IT NOW. WHILE WE HAVE THE ENERGY TO SPARE. Likes other have said that isn't an option for human advancement. That is in fact the worst case scenario is we badly mismanage our civilization, run out of high energy density fuel and get stuck within this gravity well into a agrarian society. If you actually check the rate of scientific discovery is really slow in farming cultures. Why? With the need for more labor we simply can't afford to support as many scientists. Fossil fuels and other technology's and energy sources have enabled us to have many more people pursue science and technology, which speeds up technological advancement. Thus your proposal is so regressive that it ought not even be mentioned. Our priority ought to be to spend our energy wisely, get out into the universe, and spread into the cosmos. If that isn't possible then we are subject to the whims of local physics. If we fail because we didn't try then we're a complete failure as a species.
I used to be pro-nuke, worked for a nuclear company etc, but am no longer so. For me, the biggest issues with nuke are handling long-term bulk waste and the costs: nuke is far more expensive than anything else even though the promises of the 50s and 60s were energy that would be so cheap that it was not worth metering. Thats more anti-US nuclear proliferation policy. If you don't mind breeding and re-using your fuel till it's almost non radioactive you get far less waste. You do end of with a lot of radiated other material like all the tools used to handle the fuel and waste. But likewise anything that is radioactive is potential fuel! You just need to spend more dollars trying to make the system more efficient.
Along the same line of thought, have you noticed that after years of believing we're superior to all animals, we still can teach a dog to respond to english, but have little to no idea what they mean when they bark a certain way? Why not see if we could build a system that lets dogs teach what they're trying to say. Whimper -> sad about something door scratch -> wants out to pee or poop Tail wag -> contentment angry barking -> fight or flight mechanism has gone towards the former Excited barking -> Smells owner, food, mate, friend, or stranger Romeo's balcony soliloquies with Juliet's -> You've done too much LSD, go lie down
It all varies depending on the temperament but if you've owned a dog it's fairly obvious what they're meaning. However it's likely ham fisted autistic wolf language. Like having a child raised without anyone to teach it to speak. Parentless Child or Dog develop it's own system of communication.
Conservative membership? What the hell? I was raised to consider that a person's political affiliation was a somewhat personal thing. Seems like most people I've known are like that... but then there are people all over the place "registering" as having a certain political affiliation? That seems pretty messed up to me. Way to make things just that much easier for your private rights as a citizen to be even more quickly eroded. Should being active in politics be discouraged? I have a voice with a vote, but I have a louder voice as a party faithful registering dissent. My peer group(perhaps not my generation) is very openly political. I have lively but polite debates with all sorts of people. Speaking to an MP for 10 min likely has as much effect on democracy as 50 years of voting. Like it or not it's a human system. So i vote, I send letters, and i affiliate myself with the parties whose ideas i find most attractive. I affiliated myself with the conservatives because I liked the democratic reforms. I may unaffiliated myself due to the bent towards civil liberties reduction.
Slashdot Mirror
Most survival improving mutations do not make you superman. For instance i posses a mutation that is deleterious if you inherit it form both parents, it lowers the amout of oxygen available in my system and lowers my resistance to most disease however it makes me immune to malaria. Thus because malaria is such a enormous selective factor in the last thousand generations in the area i am from, I had a higher survival value despite being unable to run marathons, and get sick more easily. It's impossible to predict what exactly will have that kind of survival value. You may select for disease resistants, highly intelligence, blonde hair and blue eyed ubermenchen and one day a virulent virus that only kills smart people wipes out the whole lot. Having a wider pool means having more mutations and more diversity so that when the selective force appears you are statistically more likely to have protection against it.
The selection part is happening in a more subtle way. The actual selection is controversial. It may be we're selecting for dumber, more promiscuous, and more numerous people or we're selecting for people who have traits that make money or attract sexual partners. Hard to tell. But we're physically changing. We've been getting taller for a century. It may not be all about nutrition. Taller men of all economic groups tend to get laid more, thus have more tall children.
Nature determines that weak and premature infants should die, yet they are kept alive and become adults. Nature determines that some adults should not be breeding, yet fertility drugs override this. Nature determines that various people should die by heart failure etc, but drugs keep them alive.
Sure, these are all good from the emotional point of view of keeping people alive and making childless couples happy etc, but does it really help the human gene pool? Perhaps Mother Nature had a good reason to kill off a weak child or prevent that infertile couple from breeding. The long term impacts can only be known in a few generations. Right now the genetic diversity pool is getting wider. Once some sort of selective factor is introduced (ie. aliens that eat only people under 250 lbs), it is better to have a wider more diverse gene pool to increase the probability the genes to survive the selective factor exist (ie. genes that encourage people to be fat). It's not as black and white as you suggest although I agree the end long term result is unknowable.
Let me guess, you have a HDTV, right?
The only lag seen usually comes from the TV processing. So you have it backwards actually:
the more precise your controller is, the more you will detect the lag induced by your HDTV processing.
The only time I saw lag on my TV was with the Wii on my HDTV, which now I play in game mode, and I don't see any lag anymore. I got my HDTV after the Wii, and never had any lag on the old CRT one.
And keep in mind that my HDTV was advertised with 5 ms refresh, so as most HDTV are advertised for worse, even in game mode, I'm sure they're still laggy. The lag is not present with a 360 nor my PS3 so no it is not in fact my TV. (6ms) The sole thing on which I agree is the "more intuitive to learn" part, which is the main goal of controllers on consoles.
So the Wiimote + Nunchuk combo wins hands down.
Then, precision is better with the Nunchuk than with a keyboard, which should be obvious to you, as the Nunchuk has an analog controller, that keyboard doesn't have, and the Nunchuk is designed to be operated easily without looking at it, while the keyboard is not.
The only way in which the Wiimote loses to the mouse, is precision, and not by much, but as it's on the Wii, which doesn't have high resolution like on a PC to begin with, this point is moot, for now at least. WASD is basically been burned into my skull for over a decade. It is every bit as precise as the nunchuk due entirely to how ham fisted many console games are with controls. I've noticed lag in RE4, Rayman, Zelda:TP, have yet to play metroid 3.
Fortunately I don't use my wii or PS3 as a PC replacement. I use them to play games that don't make it to the PC like R&T future or Fire emblem Radiant dawn.
When removing your card it is not available for further purchase but you may add it again anytime on both the Wii and PSN. On live it's still active for 30 days, making a purchase within will negate the removal. Changing your gamer tag, email, phone number, or address will negate the request to remove the CC. They made those choices. It isn't simply more verbose because their are being dutiful in informing me. They are being verbose to discourage me from leaving. I object to the whole ordeal and the suspected motive.
Anyway, banks are bad enough without Microsoft running one...
E-commerce does vary and does have many per transaction set ups but I fail to believe MS would not have a more preferable contract.
Live has the worst online transaction set up of all three. The PSN and Wii networks are 3 clicks to remove your CC. The live network is a 30 minute call followed by a 30 day delay to unhook your Credit Card from your xbox /360. They require passwords, emails used, gamer tag, you CC#, and it's expiry date. It's asinine. You may replace your card more easily but to actually remove one requires too many hoops to jump. Where as the PSN and Wii allow you to simply remove it form the account without needing to call, and it's removed instantly. They actually required me to speak with a call center manager to remove my card. After that I will not consider buying anything from the live network again. No membership, no games, nothing.
I don't think they arrest attractive 18-30 year old female flashers at all. They put them on video.
generally adult-victim-rapists are below 50% while kiddy diddlers are above while flashers are far above.
Here is MY source: "Hanson and Bussière (1998) report that only a minority (13.4%) of their total sample of 23,393 subjects from their meta-analysis committed a new offense within the average 4- to 5-year follow-up period. Even with studies with thorough record searches and follow-up periods of 15 to 20 years, the recidivism rate never exceeded 40%." instead of retyping
Your still using short term numbers. all long term studies place it very high. Also comparing career criminals and patty crime to serious offense sis also silly. The recidivisms rate for murder is estimated to be 1.2% after release in the short term 3-5 years. For violent crime, unfortunately most statistics include sex crimes so I can't provide a number. But petty crimes have extremely high recidivisms while murder does not. this suggest violent re-offences may be as low as 10% without including sex offenders. Thus your contrasting a low impact crime (petty theft) to a high impact crime(sex crime) and drawing conclusions.
For on incest male pedophilia the recidivisms for 15-30 year studies is 77%. (meta study)
Violent crimes such as murder and assault outside the family tend to be a "young man's" crime. The recidivism rate for murder tends to be quite low, in part due to the long sentences and in part due to "aging out" of testosterone-laden anger.
Family violence and for that matter sex with live-in children tends to go down if the person is not living with anyone after release. Duh.
How are the statistics affected by such factors as stable employment, stability of housing, stable family life, availability of affordable, no-stigma-attached psychological help, etc.? Today's "crucify them all" society increases the risk of recidivism by making pariahs out of those who need stability the most.
Some of the highest-recidivism rates are things that are not enforced much. I bet 99% of people who have ever gotten a ticket for speeding committed a similar crime within a month of paying their fine and I bet 99% of them do it at least monthly if not daily. They just make sure they don't get caught. What would society look like if all convicted speeders had to put a speed-regulator on their car for the next 10 years and put a "convicted speeder" bumper-sticker on their car as part of their punishment? The roads would be a lot safer I'm sure, but I don't want to live in that world.. Generally, recidivisms (~30%-50% after 15) is lower then petty crime about the same as violent crime (substantial higher then murder which is ~1.2%). Certain classes have a far greater recidivisms (male non-incest pedophiles ~77% after 15 years which is higher then all but motor vehicle theft, and caught with stolen property). But it's contrasting career criminals with people with "deviant" sexual preferences or poor impulse control. It's not really the same.
Treatment helps a lot. Dropping the rates by 1/2. But some do not think they have a problem and do not want or seek treatment. Thus I think sentences ought to be indefinite unless they accept treatment. Because this type of crime can destroy a life.
Also, all rates are suspected to under estimates. For instance Karl Toft admitted to have molested over 200 boys during his lifetime while only 28 came forward to press charges.
But popular society right now has a lot invested in the idea that there's a pedophile behind every rock, so no one pays attention to the real numbers (since we're out of commies now, and terrorism is all wrapped up by Jack Bauer, this must be the "new thing" to worry about when we're not making PSAs about the "autism epidemic"). Short term studies put a fairly low ~14-18% number. Long term studies pin it at ~50%.
meta study ~39% for rapists ~53% for child molesters after 25 years
3 year study ~5% after 3 years (mixeD)
Canadian study ~27% after 15-20 years. (mixed)
Another Canadian one ~42% after 15-30 years.
Variations are due to different criteria for re offenses. Some count only second convictions, others count second arrests. All note that this classification of crime is often under reported. Most of the long term studies point to a coin flip whether a person will do it again.
It seems, in the long run even given anonymity the rapist/child molester are 50/50 to do it one more time and get arrested for it. The meta study was done from various studies following people from 10-25 years. It also notes sex crimes are under reported so it may in fact be higher. This previous to any registry so it seems they are predisposed to it. Treatment seems very helpful. reducing recidivism from ~43% to ~18%.
Having dated a rape victim, I know it's not a light crime. It drastically changes a person. She spent some time in the hospital for the roofies the guy used. I don't think she reported it, instead other things happened to even the score. I'm uncertain if I agree with that but in a very primal way I'm glad he was directly punished.
You'll keep hearing wonderful things because we actually have a fairly highly motivated political class who more or less raises enough outrage to keep laws on the better side of sane. Sometimes it's an uphill battle though. I think this minority government wouldn't risk power over this. Hopefully they'll tone it down so much it won't be a threat or they'll ditch it. - me
I'm glad I was right. At least for the time being. I think it's spreading from the initial alarmist into more politically potent circles now. IT's exactly the sort of legislation Conservative supporters would be against. More importantly the "anybody but the liberals" crowd that brought the conservatives into power would suddenly change into the "anybody but the conservatives" crowd. I'm glad it's a minority government. Minority government seems to do the least damage.
Just because we have safety regulations doesn't mean that safety regulations are followed. Because the Chernobyl reactor was an incredibly stupid design run by idiots. Most modern designs shut down when idiots go out of their way to mess with things. The worst western accident was a coolant leak. Event he Russians moved away from the same design as Chernobyl. Chernobyl was build liek a giant steam bomb with radioactive bits.
More silliness - so what if little oil is burned for electricity? What does that have to do with wind vs nukes, or wind vs coal/gas? Nothing. OK, so that's probably lthe silliest argument.
Why don't you read the article to which I linked, before lying about wind's economy? It's written by an economist, with facts instead of pure silliness. The winds kinetic energy is finite. You can have wind farm everywhere or else there'd be little wind to power the interior ones. It's not a plausible alternative. Solar might be if we had high efficiency panels and blanketed almost all free non agro space with them. Although the change in albedo might be a bad side effect.
Until we slide down that far, though, I would recommend Vanadium redox/solar/wind combo. And DO IT NOW. WHILE WE HAVE THE ENERGY TO SPARE. Likes other have said that isn't an option for human advancement. That is in fact the worst case scenario is we badly mismanage our civilization, run out of high energy density fuel and get stuck within this gravity well into a agrarian society. If you actually check the rate of scientific discovery is really slow in farming cultures. Why? With the need for more labor we simply can't afford to support as many scientists. Fossil fuels and other technology's and energy sources have enabled us to have many more people pursue science and technology, which speeds up technological advancement. Thus your proposal is so regressive that it ought not even be mentioned. Our priority ought to be to spend our energy wisely, get out into the universe, and spread into the cosmos. If that isn't possible then we are subject to the whims of local physics. If we fail because we didn't try then we're a complete failure as a species.
I used to be pro-nuke, worked for a nuclear company etc, but am no longer so. For me, the biggest issues with nuke are handling long-term bulk waste and the costs: nuke is far more expensive than anything else even though the promises of the 50s and 60s were energy that would be so cheap that it was not worth metering. Thats more anti-US nuclear proliferation policy. If you don't mind breeding and re-using your fuel till it's almost non radioactive you get far less waste. You do end of with a lot of radiated other material like all the tools used to handle the fuel and waste. But likewise anything that is radioactive is potential fuel! You just need to spend more dollars trying to make the system more efficient.
door scratch -> wants out to pee or poop
Tail wag -> contentment
angry barking -> fight or flight mechanism has gone towards the former
Excited barking -> Smells owner, food, mate, friend, or stranger
Romeo's balcony soliloquies with Juliet's -> You've done too much LSD, go lie down
It all varies depending on the temperament but if you've owned a dog it's fairly obvious what they're meaning. However it's likely ham fisted autistic wolf language. Like having a child raised without anyone to teach it to speak. Parentless Child or Dog develop it's own system of communication.