But you've progressed from the crime to the trial. At that point one hopes actual standards of evidence, including full provenance, would apply.
What I'm talking about is a dandy opportunity to "round up the usual suspects" (whether as harrassment or as fishing expeditions)... and then if they're not a match when actual samples are found, well, so sad about the lost wages and embarrassment... and possibly lost parole for those whose condition of parole includes "NO arrests for any reason"... you can see the potential for abuse.
It wouldn't be the first time some "on file just because we can" data has been used this way; Iron Curtain countries were infamous for it.
A DNA profile is just a series of letters that indicate genetic markers. Anyone with a text editor could fake one, and if the original physical sample (say from a crime scene) becomes conveniently lost, there is no way to prove that it wasn't a bogus DNA profile from a nonexistent sample.
Would be very easy to pull out the desired perp's existing profile and type their DNA marker list into the forensics report, then claim the sample from the crime scene got lost along the way. Maybe a judge will see through it and dismiss it as hearsay, but even at best, it lets the cops harrass "undesirables" whenever they want.
To the contrary. I own my DNA just like I own my thoughts. Or are you saying that since if I speak my thoughts become known (or if I drop a hair my DNA becomes collectable) that they cease to be my private concern??
Not to mention that once your DNA is on file, you can be RE-searched any time they please, without a warrant, and you'll never even know it was done.
Now, this may be "mostly harmless" to most people, but I still don't like where it's headed, and it's a bad precedent for allowing "searches any time we damn well please".
I used to believe that. Turns out there wasn't any hard evidence; the DDT ban came about almost wholly due to Rachel Carson's bestselling book SILENT SPRING, which has since been discredited as having no scientific basis. (And yes, I've read the book.)
I dislike large flash files loading in the browser, so I download the FLVs and play 'em in a utility viewer... some play fine, some skip, a few stall entirely. Methinks it may be some variation in the compression scheme, as I've seen similar issues with MPEGs.
A few sites have done that, including PCWorld. I notice it didn't last, probably because a lot of people go "who needs this shit" and leave, or with newbies, can't figure out how to proceed past it (if it doesn't automatically proceed, and some don't).
Also, remember that when the 2nd Amendment thing was recently up before SCOTUS, Montana's Sec'y of State (backed by 40-odd state legislators) put forth a resolution to secede if the 2nd Amendment was not upheld.
Well, *I* could see it coming, and all I did was read part of one of Obama's books, and become aware of his political history (I didn't see any of his speeches/debates). That made him clear enough to me that none of his actions as President has surprised me in the least, and I expect there will be a lot more rude "surprises" in store for those who believed that "change" meant "change as WE want it".
Ya know, all this would be irrelevant if all the convenience store clerks were armed with phasers. And not those wimpy models that only set to "stun" either!!
Some plants (oaks among them) do produce chemicals in their leaves that inhibit germination and/or growth in other plants. However, as others point out, this has nothing to do with wood or wood pulp, let alone paper production; and in most cases, shade and rotting biomass are indeed the larger inhibiting factors.
Hmm... maybe we should consider using oak biomass for our poison-pen printers;)
I'm wondering how the sustainable wooden sleeves count up, over time, against my 60+ year old Bakelite-and-metal mechanical pencil. After all, it only had to be made ONCE, so there was no carbon expended in harvesting the sustainable wood.
The basic idea may be okay, tho, as a quick-and-dirty (literally) portable printer that can use whatever grindable-coloured-gunk is ready to hand, and more importantly, requires no power. So the print quality will suck, but it may be good enough for printing something out in the field where you've got a laptop but no other ready power source.
Substitute ordinary crayons for coffee grounds, and it may well be a pretty reliable gadget, quite suitable for rough locations without power sources for printers, and the "ink" available almost anywhere at minimal cost (and even in different colours). For text or a rough drawing, the equivalent of an old-fashioned 9-pin printer is quite sufficient.
Privatized prisons have a vested interest in the maximum proliferation of new laws that turn ordinary activities into crimes, thus generating as many "new customers" as possible -- but preferably customers who are easier and CHEAPER to maintain, rather than expensive max-security nightmares.
I don't know what the max wage is after a long career working for the CA prison system, but I've been given to understand from local "we're hiring" ads that the starting wage is about $50,000 per year, plus benefits -- and full-wage retirement after just 20 years.
Which is part of why it costs around $25k to keep a single convict, in the style to which they are now accustomed, for just one year.
Slashdot Mirror
We've already tried this. It's called the "lynch mob". The main result seems to be that we decided round-robin executioners were not such a good idea.
No, no, no. To eat casseroles and lutefisk, mumble about the weather, and sing at the top of their collective lungs at the slightest excuse!!
Who gets the money from the "membership fee" -- the club or the state gov't??
I'd say the same about ... oh, say Quebec and Alberta, which apparently come from different planets.
Doubtless Moscow and Siberia have rarely met, either. :)
That may be, but ISTM mass outbreaks of disease are a worse "toxin".
But you've progressed from the crime to the trial. At that point one hopes actual standards of evidence, including full provenance, would apply.
What I'm talking about is a dandy opportunity to "round up the usual suspects" (whether as harrassment or as fishing expeditions) ... and then if they're not a match when actual samples are found, well, so sad about the lost wages and embarrassment ... and possibly lost parole for those whose condition of parole includes "NO arrests for any reason" ... you can see the potential for abuse.
It wouldn't be the first time some "on file just because we can" data has been used this way; Iron Curtain countries were infamous for it.
A DNA profile is just a series of letters that indicate genetic markers. Anyone with a text editor could fake one, and if the original physical sample (say from a crime scene) becomes conveniently lost, there is no way to prove that it wasn't a bogus DNA profile from a nonexistent sample.
Would be very easy to pull out the desired perp's existing profile and type their DNA marker list into the forensics report, then claim the sample from the crime scene got lost along the way. Maybe a judge will see through it and dismiss it as hearsay, but even at best, it lets the cops harrass "undesirables" whenever they want.
To the contrary. I own my DNA just like I own my thoughts. Or are you saying that since if I speak my thoughts become known (or if I drop a hair my DNA becomes collectable) that they cease to be my private concern??
Not to mention that once your DNA is on file, you can be RE-searched any time they please, without a warrant, and you'll never even know it was done.
Now, this may be "mostly harmless" to most people, but I still don't like where it's headed, and it's a bad precedent for allowing "searches any time we damn well please".
I know, I was just adding another reason why it's a complete mismatch. :)
I used to believe that. Turns out there wasn't any hard evidence; the DDT ban came about almost wholly due to Rachel Carson's bestselling book SILENT SPRING, which has since been discredited as having no scientific basis. (And yes, I've read the book.)
Good tip, except Mozilla/Seamonkey tends to ignore everything else while it's parsing JS.
But when it works... as a side benefit, perhaps cost them a little bandwidth... serves 'em right.
I don't mind clean relevant ads. I just don't want to be poked in the eyeballs with 'em when I didn't ask to be.
I dislike large flash files loading in the browser, so I download the FLVs and play 'em in a utility viewer... some play fine, some skip, a few stall entirely. Methinks it may be some variation in the compression scheme, as I've seen similar issues with MPEGs.
A few sites have done that, including PCWorld. I notice it didn't last, probably because a lot of people go "who needs this shit" and leave, or with newbies, can't figure out how to proceed past it (if it doesn't automatically proceed, and some don't).
Or similarly -- my time is billable at $2/minute. Your popups just used NN-minutes of my time. Pay up!!
Then does the RIAA get to jail any lawyers who refuse to be part of its extortion scheme??
Also, remember that when the 2nd Amendment thing was recently up before SCOTUS, Montana's Sec'y of State (backed by 40-odd state legislators) put forth a resolution to secede if the 2nd Amendment was not upheld.
http://progunleaders.org/Heller/resolution.html
Well, *I* could see it coming, and all I did was read part of one of Obama's books, and become aware of his political history (I didn't see any of his speeches/debates). That made him clear enough to me that none of his actions as President has surprised me in the least, and I expect there will be a lot more rude "surprises" in store for those who believed that "change" meant "change as WE want it".
Ya know, all this would be irrelevant if all the convenience store clerks were armed with phasers. And not those wimpy models that only set to "stun" either!!
Some plants (oaks among them) do produce chemicals in their leaves that inhibit germination and/or growth in other plants. However, as others point out, this has nothing to do with wood or wood pulp, let alone paper production; and in most cases, shade and rotting biomass are indeed the larger inhibiting factors.
Hmm... maybe we should consider using oak biomass for our poison-pen printers ;)
I'm wondering how the sustainable wooden sleeves count up, over time, against my 60+ year old Bakelite-and-metal mechanical pencil. After all, it only had to be made ONCE, so there was no carbon expended in harvesting the sustainable wood.
The basic idea may be okay, tho, as a quick-and-dirty (literally) portable printer that can use whatever grindable-coloured-gunk is ready to hand, and more importantly, requires no power. So the print quality will suck, but it may be good enough for printing something out in the field where you've got a laptop but no other ready power source.
Substitute ordinary crayons for coffee grounds, and it may well be a pretty reliable gadget, quite suitable for rough locations without power sources for printers, and the "ink" available almost anywhere at minimal cost (and even in different colours). For text or a rough drawing, the equivalent of an old-fashioned 9-pin printer is quite sufficient.
Yes, the government has learned that lesson very well.
But We the People have forgotten OUR lesson, which was to never let the government acquire that much power in the first place.
Even that, I think, is not the real point.
Privatized prisons have a vested interest in the maximum proliferation of new laws that turn ordinary activities into crimes, thus generating as many "new customers" as possible -- but preferably customers who are easier and CHEAPER to maintain, rather than expensive max-security nightmares.
(Me? cynical?? what gives you that idea?!)
I don't know what the max wage is after a long career working for the CA prison system, but I've been given to understand from local "we're hiring" ads that the starting wage is about $50,000 per year, plus benefits -- and full-wage retirement after just 20 years.
Which is part of why it costs around $25k to keep a single convict, in the style to which they are now accustomed, for just one year.
Your tax dollars at work.