I suppose if you tolerate a high level of revenge killing and feuding, you don't really care. But if you do, then either the state performs what the public considers to be justice or the public starts taking matters into its own hands.
Not an argument for the death penalty.
I didn't say it was. You were speaking of "vengeance". I merely pointed out why that needs to be a part of the process.
He is by definition a traitor and is just trying to use someone else's crimes (domestic spying by NSA and its ilk) to divert attention from his own treason.
No enemy was aided and abetted by this. Instead, it was the people of the US and of its supposed allies who benefited from these revelations.
After a reset, we must remember what Socrates stated. In order for a Republic to succeed the members of the Republic must be highly educated, and that a Political class must be guarded against.
When you say "Socrates stated", you really mean "Plato stated" since every word Socrates is alleged to have stated was recorded by Plato. This is important because Plato had his own biases and blind spots about what constituted a "political class". For example, Plato created a political class of "philosopher kings".
Vengeance seems to be a top priority for some reason.
Because if it isn't, then people start taking matters into their own hands. If criminals singly or as a whole are generally considered to have "gotten off easy", that is punished inadequately for the crimes they committed, then members of society and the original people harmed by the crime will start taking it upon themselves to punish the criminals and friends and relatives who may be easier to reach than the criminal.
That is, if society doesn't punish people in a way that is mostly considered at minimum appropriate to the severity of the crime, then you get eye for an eye punishment. This is how feuds often start IMHO.
What matters is the economy, the capitalist's version of the greater good.
Not in this example. Note that the previous poster used the code word, "discrimination". While there is a genuine problem with racism and other sorts of bigotry, what's going on here is that the poster wanted cabbies to be forced to do something even though it was dangerous due to the failure of social policy (here, the policing of dangerous neighborhoods).
The cabbie who might value his own health and property and disagree and resist, will become "outdated and couldn't adapt", "needs to get with the times", "holding on to obsolete business models that needs to die off", "lazy and entitled", "should have known better", "your own fault for being competed out of relevance", "not facing the music", etc.
In practice, it depends on whether the self-centered behavior strengthens the business model. It often does making your numerous straw man quotes irrelevant.
You're the food delivery, door opening, and emergency heat source animal, so you have to be tolerated. But let's not get crazy with this "happiness" thing.
I feel that the high amount of visibility in such vehicles and the correct sensory input (it's an open vehicle, so you can use sound and your vision isn't distorted by more distracting shit in the way) makes them capable of safely and accurately judging whether or not they can make a clear intersection.
If we're going that route, then a lot of vehicles would have sufficient visibility and sensory input to do that.
The thing is almost all the factors that cause governments to overspend are absent from AGW
Ok, which of those five is absent? I don't see a single one. I've already explained the big interests behind door 2. And bureaucracies get to expand as a result of the spending (for example, energy efficient regulation and enforcement, enhanced environmental regulation and enforcement, increased supervision of subsidies for "green" technologies.
4. is the overwhelming public support for the environmentalism religion. And 5 is irrelevant since government can always spend more even if people are eager to send in their taxes.
For any impact over about 10 mph, they are not going to signifcantly reduce the peak accelerations your brain experiences
I wonder why you think that?
The link you provide didn't actually study or "meta-study" any real world injuries, but rather criticized one particular study that did. The only concrete claim they do make is that "design of helmets reflects a discredited theory of brain injury", but even then, they don't have evidence that the discredited theory in question is sufficiently wrong that the helmets don't work well.
In Idaho, a bicycle can stop at a traffic signal and then proceed if clear (I want this extended to motorcycles and small, high-visibility vehicles like top-down convertibles).
The reason is because bicycles don't necessary weight enough to trigger traffic light sensors. I suppose Idaho lawmakers thinks that motorcycles do. And no reason as a result to do anything special for convertibles.
You can predict with certainty they will do what is illegal.
I guess you don't get the point of prediction. The idea is not to predict whether someone will do something illegal or stupid, but rather if they'll do something that drapes them over the hood of your car. That's what makes them unpredictable.
All these moves to build bike lanes are idiotic and wasteful, because they do absolutely nothing to physically separate bikes from cars, and cars will drive in the bike lanes whenever they want (which is, every time they need to take a right turn, or simply stop paying attention, or get drunk).
Which actually is quite a bit of the time.
If these idiot mayors want to encourage bicycling, they need to build real bike roads, like they have in Copenhagen, where the bikes are the only thing on the road, not cars, and not pedestrians either. That's the only way to do it.
How much real estate does that take up? I guess what I'm getting at is that here, we seemed to have created yet another mutually incompatible transportation mode (well, becomes incompatible with higher risk intolerance that is) which requires its own infrastructure. Usually this isn't too bad, since, for example, planes and trains don't fly on the same tracks.
But a place like Copenhagen probably now has four different, mutually incompatible land transportation schemes, pedestrians, bicyclers, autos/trucks, and trains that all use land. How in the world, do they get that all to work out?
The answer is Car driver hit a bike? Car driver is 100% liable for all the bicyclists medical bills, lost wages, AND loses the right to drive or own a car for the rest of their life.
And that's fine as long as you are allowed to shoot bicyclists and anyone else I don't like on sight, no bag limit.
but Governments still have strong incentives to reduce spending
And they have strong incentives to increase spending as well. Why are you even trying to argue this particular point, when you can just look at actual government spending and see a large number of the governments are very out of control when it comes to spending, contrary to your assertion?
This discussion was about this sort of markets and whether they are good.
I have to disagree with that. While the discussion was vaguely about markets with high frequency trading, it was with the built in assumption that HFT was bad. So the second part of your assertion is incorrect. There was no questioning of whether they were good or not.
And I have to say that bailouts as implemented in the real world aren't actually part of the market. They're factored in by market participants for their risk taking, of course, since it is relevant information.
I looked at the last ten edits I did, the earliest stretching back about seven months. None had been altered. None. I don't tend to make extensive changes and most of my editing was in physics or military history articles, but I don't have the experience of my edits being promptly reversed by either a bot or determined human.
Arguably, US morale is the lowest it has been since the US Civil War:
Anything is arguable. The post Vietnam War period was worse. You also had in addition your list, widespread drug use and widespread lack of discipline.
Morale is extremely low. If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any Snowdens or Assanges.
I don't know if it's still true, but I was able about ten years back to order generic legos directly from the manufacturer. And I must admit to loving the weird special parts. Get enough of them together and you can do some freaky things with them.
Slashdot Mirror
Therefore... we should appease them?
I suppose if you tolerate a high level of revenge killing and feuding, you don't really care. But if you do, then either the state performs what the public considers to be justice or the public starts taking matters into its own hands.
Not an argument for the death penalty.
I didn't say it was. You were speaking of "vengeance". I merely pointed out why that needs to be a part of the process.
He is by definition a traitor and is just trying to use someone else's crimes (domestic spying by NSA and its ilk) to divert attention from his own treason.
No enemy was aided and abetted by this. Instead, it was the people of the US and of its supposed allies who benefited from these revelations.
After a reset, we must remember what Socrates stated. In order for a Republic to succeed the members of the Republic must be highly educated, and that a Political class must be guarded against.
When you say "Socrates stated", you really mean "Plato stated" since every word Socrates is alleged to have stated was recorded by Plato. This is important because Plato had his own biases and blind spots about what constituted a "political class". For example, Plato created a political class of "philosopher kings".
Well that's it then, requiring people to take off their shoes one extra time a day is the first step on the path to genocide. Who knew?
You do, now. Slippery slope is a real world problem not a fallacy when it comes to exercise of government power.
Vengeance seems to be a top priority for some reason.
Because if it isn't, then people start taking matters into their own hands. If criminals singly or as a whole are generally considered to have "gotten off easy", that is punished inadequately for the crimes they committed, then members of society and the original people harmed by the crime will start taking it upon themselves to punish the criminals and friends and relatives who may be easier to reach than the criminal.
That is, if society doesn't punish people in a way that is mostly considered at minimum appropriate to the severity of the crime, then you get eye for an eye punishment. This is how feuds often start IMHO.
What matters is the economy, the capitalist's version of the greater good.
Not in this example. Note that the previous poster used the code word, "discrimination". While there is a genuine problem with racism and other sorts of bigotry, what's going on here is that the poster wanted cabbies to be forced to do something even though it was dangerous due to the failure of social policy (here, the policing of dangerous neighborhoods).
The cabbie who might value his own health and property and disagree and resist, will become "outdated and couldn't adapt", "needs to get with the times", "holding on to obsolete business models that needs to die off", "lazy and entitled", "should have known better", "your own fault for being competed out of relevance", "not facing the music", etc.
In practice, it depends on whether the self-centered behavior strengthens the business model. It often does making your numerous straw man quotes irrelevant.
Yet we're both just animals?
You're the food delivery, door opening, and emergency heat source animal, so you have to be tolerated. But let's not get crazy with this "happiness" thing.
What's wrong with this particular discrimination? Is the health and property of the cabbie not important?
I feel that the high amount of visibility in such vehicles and the correct sensory input (it's an open vehicle, so you can use sound and your vision isn't distorted by more distracting shit in the way) makes them capable of safely and accurately judging whether or not they can make a clear intersection.
If we're going that route, then a lot of vehicles would have sufficient visibility and sensory input to do that.
It would be UPS's insurance on the truck.
So he broke policy in a way that didn't actually cause a problem
And if he had killed someone while driving that truck at the time, UPS would have been partly liable. That would have caused a problem.
The thing is almost all the factors that cause governments to overspend are absent from AGW
Ok, which of those five is absent? I don't see a single one. I've already explained the big interests behind door 2. And bureaucracies get to expand as a result of the spending (for example, energy efficient regulation and enforcement, enhanced environmental regulation and enforcement, increased supervision of subsidies for "green" technologies.
4. is the overwhelming public support for the environmentalism religion. And 5 is irrelevant since government can always spend more even if people are eager to send in their taxes.
Probably by planning for it early on, rather than waiting 100-300 years
I'm pretty sure the city is much older than that.
For any impact over about 10 mph, they are not going to signifcantly reduce the peak accelerations your brain experiences
I wonder why you think that?
The link you provide didn't actually study or "meta-study" any real world injuries, but rather criticized one particular study that did. The only concrete claim they do make is that "design of helmets reflects a discredited theory of brain injury", but even then, they don't have evidence that the discredited theory in question is sufficiently wrong that the helmets don't work well.
In Idaho, a bicycle can stop at a traffic signal and then proceed if clear (I want this extended to motorcycles and small, high-visibility vehicles like top-down convertibles).
The reason is because bicycles don't necessary weight enough to trigger traffic light sensors. I suppose Idaho lawmakers thinks that motorcycles do. And no reason as a result to do anything special for convertibles.
You can predict with certainty they will do what is illegal.
I guess you don't get the point of prediction. The idea is not to predict whether someone will do something illegal or stupid, but rather if they'll do something that drapes them over the hood of your car. That's what makes them unpredictable.
All these moves to build bike lanes are idiotic and wasteful, because they do absolutely nothing to physically separate bikes from cars, and cars will drive in the bike lanes whenever they want (which is, every time they need to take a right turn, or simply stop paying attention, or get drunk).
Which actually is quite a bit of the time.
If these idiot mayors want to encourage bicycling, they need to build real bike roads, like they have in Copenhagen, where the bikes are the only thing on the road, not cars, and not pedestrians either. That's the only way to do it.
How much real estate does that take up? I guess what I'm getting at is that here, we seemed to have created yet another mutually incompatible transportation mode (well, becomes incompatible with higher risk intolerance that is) which requires its own infrastructure. Usually this isn't too bad, since, for example, planes and trains don't fly on the same tracks.
But a place like Copenhagen probably now has four different, mutually incompatible land transportation schemes, pedestrians, bicyclers, autos/trucks, and trains that all use land. How in the world, do they get that all to work out?
The answer is Car driver hit a bike? Car driver is 100% liable for all the bicyclists medical bills, lost wages, AND loses the right to drive or own a car for the rest of their life.
And that's fine as long as you are allowed to shoot bicyclists and anyone else I don't like on sight, no bag limit.
but Governments still have strong incentives to reduce spending
And they have strong incentives to increase spending as well. Why are you even trying to argue this particular point, when you can just look at actual government spending and see a large number of the governments are very out of control when it comes to spending, contrary to your assertion?
No it's not market in general.
Hence, why I corrected them.
This discussion was about this sort of markets and whether they are good.
I have to disagree with that. While the discussion was vaguely about markets with high frequency trading, it was with the built in assumption that HFT was bad. So the second part of your assertion is incorrect. There was no questioning of whether they were good or not.
And I have to say that bailouts as implemented in the real world aren't actually part of the market. They're factored in by market participants for their risk taking, of course, since it is relevant information.
I'd have to say no.
Then so does the mugger, if the victim is taking risks by walking around alone in a dangerous neighborhood.
Nope.
It also stretches credibility to argue that a computer bug is equivalent to an "agreement".
How is credibility being "stretched"? They're engaging in a highly risky, voluntary activity without doing due diligence first.
I looked at the last ten edits I did, the earliest stretching back about seven months. None had been altered. None. I don't tend to make extensive changes and most of my editing was in physics or military history articles, but I don't have the experience of my edits being promptly reversed by either a bot or determined human.
Arguably, US morale is the lowest it has been since the US Civil War:
Anything is arguable. The post Vietnam War period was worse. You also had in addition your list, widespread drug use and widespread lack of discipline.
Morale is extremely low. If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any Snowdens or Assanges.
Neither had anything to do with the US military.
I don't know if it's still true, but I was able about ten years back to order generic legos directly from the manufacturer. And I must admit to loving the weird special parts. Get enough of them together and you can do some freaky things with them.