First, you are making false assumptions. No, you don't get to decide that people will be buying a motorscooter if they don't get a nano. That may be what the people USED to buy, but so what? India is developing. But even if you were right, the rest of your information is BAD.
Second, comparing motorscooters to cars is incredibally hard to do. Cars carry more, among other things. While it is true that 130 mpg is out there, some scooters get as little as 30 mpg. 130 needs a heavy performance upgrade designed to get that. The average US motorscooter mpg is about 75, not 90. If two people get in it, it plummets to below 50. Why? Because the weight being pushed goes from 500 lbs to 650 lbs. The car however doesn't change significantly whether it has one or two people, as the weight change goes from 1,500 pounds to 1,650 pounds.
Thirdly, scooters tend to be incredibally polluting. How do they get that nice mileage? They use a ONE STROKE engine, which pollutes more. As in 5 - 25 times more polluting. In the US, scooters are legally allowed to give off 5.7 times more CO than cars and nearly 24 times more unburned hydrocarbons, because the law recognizes the difficulty in making a clean one stroke engine. The Nano uses a two stroke engine, like all cars. It may use a bit more gas, but the pollution given off is MUCH MUCH less. Not the same as gas mileage, but your scooter no longer looks like a clear winner
India's carbon footprint will be going up no matter what we do. The Nano has a good MPG rating. Better than many hybrids. It's a good thing, not a pollution machine.
4. Human lifespan expanded to over 1,000 years. Frankly, this is easier and more likely to do than #2 or #3.
5. Many many set of short hops. Alpha Centauri is 4 light years away. An antimatter powered ship can reach 0.1 C. It only takes 40 years to get there. That is one generation, not multiple ones.
6. FTL travel. Sorry, but no I don't fall for the "we don't know how to do it, so it must be impossible" stupidity that prevented people from trying things like travel faster than the speed of sound. Do you know many people smarter than you thought we could not reach the moon? Lose your arrogance and admit that you don't know everything about how the universe works.
The PPC (Powered Parachute Cars) don't need to take off or land at an airport. They are quite adapt at landing in 100 to 150 ft fields. (Runways are over 1,000 ft.) On the other hand, they do not come close to the 250 mph speed. Typically they are designed to travel at 25 mph to 30mp - they are sports equiptment and in an open cockpit, that feels VERY fast. But like I said, you can easily move that up to 100 mph.
If you care about the feeling of speed, open the cockpit. If you care about getting from point A to point B in 1/2 the time, I think a network of parks licensed to land and take off would do it. But honestly, to really make this a consumer item, vertical take off would be best. Neither the folding wing nor the powered parachute is the best bet for that.
The Vh of Parajet's street legal car is about 60 knots. There are many non-street legal powered parachutes that hit 87 knots (100 mph). (see http://www.softwingflight.com/news-releases-powered-parachutes) This is because the FAA has a maximum VH of 87 knot limit (100 mph) for the current sports license.
If you don't care about the sports license limits, I don't think it would be a problem to upgrade the engine, but then you would need the better pilot license to fly them.
Honestly, raising your top legal speed from 65 mph (most areas in the US), along the curving, traffic ridden roads to 100 mph as the bird flies, should alone be worth it for typical 'road trips' of less than 200 miles. It would more than cut your time in half, assuming typical driving conditions.
The real problem with going the Powered Parachute route is weather. A powered Parachute car works great as a daylight only, sunny weather vehicle. But I would not want to fly one in anything mroe than a light drizzle. The Fixed wing/foldable wing would almost certainly do a lot better in the rain.
Flying cars already exist. This attempt, like so many others, makes the stupid "we need a fixed wing" assumption.
This makes it a much better aircraft, but as always causes HUGE problems on the ground. It causes huge air-drag, even when foled up. They need to do it the other way. Make a good car that can also fly. Why? Because if flight is your major interest, then you always will need.
Specifically, go the powered parachute route. (Basic, non-street legal version here: http://www.easyflight.com/)
The author's unspoken assumption is that it is impossible to have them make mistakes the way humans do.
Take poker for example. We have a standard bias of "unknown = 50%". This actually works pretty well for cases where information is not known. To make the winning software programs, they basically program in the rules that a human expert knows to be true. It is NOT that hard to instead program in a bunch of rules that a human FOOL 'knows' to be true. Just find some bad poker players and ask them what they do in certain circumstances.
--------------
Similarly, the pool game could be made more realistic. I noticed the first thing he did was have the computer select the highest possible point scorign shot, ignoring banking a shot unless it is set to super-expert. That is NOT what humans do. Bad pool players pick the EASIEST shot - i.e. the one that is most straight on and least distance. (I know, I am a bad pool player). As you get better, you raise your standards about what you think you can hit. So a moderate player looks among all the shots he thinks he can hit and takes the highest point one of that.
You admit you don't now WHY they run the red lights.
I propose to you that the reason is bad light timing. Otherwise why would only the people in New Haven have that issue?
Part of the problem is you don't always SEE poor red light timing. It is not just the 4 second amber light. Another example of bad red light timing is whent he police do this:
Road A is a major road, heavily trafficked - You get 100 cars a minute. Road B is lightly trafficked - 10 cars a minute. Red light provides 1 minute for both Road A and Road B. Surprise Surprise you get cars stacke dup on Road A while Road B sits empty, encouraging scofflaws to ignore the red light. Proper timing is MORE time for the heavy road and less for the light road.
Then there is always the standard, simple trick. Interesection A is a high traffic interesection. Like all such high traffic intersections, it is SUPPOSED to be an "actuated" one. That is, they detect traffic on it (usually via induction loops), and set the timing based on the traffic. But they decide to save money on this by installing detection on the minor street approaches and major street left turns only. Just a set amount of time for the 'core'. Oh, and that money you saved by not instlaling full actuation? Buy a traffic light camera, of course.
Oh, and then there is my favorite 'timing problem'. Heavy use lights sometimes are set up as 'coordingated'. That means it is set up so that when travelling say North on a major road out of the city at 5 PM, the lights as block 1 turn green before block 2, and lastly block 3. But OOPS, someone seems to have put in a fourth street that turns green just as light 3 turns red.
If your city TRULY has a red light running problem then the solution is TECHNOLOGICAL, not criminal. You need to actually put in the right actuated lights, fix the coordinatedion, and lengthen yellow lights so that someone can actually get through the interesection. But that costs money to do, while installing red light cameras is profitable (but only if your city has screwed up traffic lights). Only after EVERY problem street has had these solutions tried should you even red light cameras. (I haven't even mentioned the Speed Camera "Pimping" game, - teen age kids make up a fake license plate duplicating the car of someone they dislike then intentinoally run a red light with a camera installed).
Part of what you are describing sounds like bad light timing to me. For example, if five cars are routinely still waiting at a right turn red light, then guess what? That means the right turn light was not long enough. In a properly maintained system, people don't get frustrated. It is not that hard to time thinks correctly - if you want to.
Part of the proof is in what you yourself describe. If you are having horrific crashes on a regular basis then your traffic interesection has a serious issue that NEEDS to be dealt with. Merely enforcing the law AFTER a crime has been committed is not enough - you need to actually FIX the intersection.
People do run red lights. Usually because they are ANGRY at a really badly timed intersection. There should NEVER be a case where you sit through a red light, watch it turn green, then watch it turn red again. That is a definition of poor timing. Better to make both sides wait twice as long, but at least get everyone in the que through in a single red light.
"House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) recently called for congressional hearings in the wake of a report that claims local governments have progressively shortened yellow-lights since 1985 to maximize fines, and have endangered motorists in the process. "
"Chattanooga, Tennessee; Dallas, Texas; Springfield, Missouri; Lubbock, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; and Union City, California all cut the timing on their lights, and while some have paid back the fines, others have not. "
"It turns out, however, that Arrighetti and a handful of public officials were allegedly a bit greedier than most. He's accused of conspiring with 63 municipal police, 39 local government officials, and the managers of seven different companies in order to rig the system so that it would turn from yellow to red quicker, therefore catching more motorists. "
I may be an idiot, but you can't read.
I am NOT objecting because people intentionally red lights get caught. In fact I said that such a thing almost NEVER happens.
I have a clue, you on the other hand an incompetent moron that can't read or understand a simple post. I repeat my initial statment: PEOPLE DO NOT INTENTIONALLY RUN ENOUGH RED LIGHTS TO MAKE THE CAMERAS WORTH WHILE.
The majority of red light tickets are caused by red lights that have been timed incorrectly.
That is my statement. If you learn to read, you might be able to argure with me. Till then, you are just an incompetent troll. (as is the idiot that marked you insightful without checking the context.
Running a red light is not like speeding. People concisouly decide to speed - because they are in a hurry. No one wants to run a red light. People are not stupid, they know it is dangerous.
This means that:
1. People run red lights because either a. The light is POORLY timed, creating the accident. or b. They have made an error they truly did not want to do.
2. Case B is RARE. In fact, it happens so rarely that it is never profitable. The cost to install and maintain the red light camera always exceeeds the number of tickets you get waiting for case b.
3. This means that in order for red light cameras to be profitable, the lights they are installed in must be poorly timed.
pre-camera, the police would fix the red light. They used to do examine the red light timing every time they gave a ticket. Post camera, they pay a camera company to deal with the light - both the camera and the red light timing. Surprise, surprise, they don't fix the light's timing. If they do, the camera ceases to be profitable - and the company goes out of business.
--------------
I don't like speed cameras because I think they subvert the justice system - but at least they don't cause accidents.
The lights slowly become badly timed, creating more tickets - and more deadly accidents.
Sorry, slashdot did not display the proper character. that is 9.5 micrometers (I tried to use Ansi character 181 in front of the m, the scientific notation for micrometers.)
For further clarification, a human red blood cell is about 7 mirometers.
The article does not clarify how exact they are.
For example, there is a huge difference between only being able to identify that page A is still the original page A and being able to say that unknown page A came from Batch 12043, which according to our records was produced by X corporation, on Y Date, and sold to Z retailer on date W, using UPC code 90827452345 through 90827452356
Which they can do can dramatically alter the usefulness of the technology. I would be very surprised if they could do both.
One of the hardest part of police work is FINDING the guilty people. Catching them and proving guilt is generally pretty easy.
So basically, this total idiot of a sheriff discovers a shortcut to doing his job. All he has to do is to answer the ads on Craigslist.
But instead of doing his job and arresting all the pros on Craigslist, this moron decides to shut down his BIGGEST WEAPON.
Yes, Context is important. And the context you prove shows you are wrong. The problem is you are working on the assumption that everywhere EXCEPT a gay bar is a 'straight pick up place'. And that they were being rude about it, as opposed to simply stating a fact.
Xbox is NOT a 'pickup bar for straights'. Moreover, they are NOT repeating saying it. They wrote it once in their profile.
If you were to go to a random street corner and post a sign on a public message board saying "I like to screw chicks", and sign your name, ONCE, and someone was to come by and remove it, then hey, you would have the right to complain.
Just like the gay person had the right to complain here.
"Most public schools rules, as acts of a government regulatory body within its legal area of competence, have the force of law. Failing to comply with them is breaking the law. It may or may not always be criminal, but that's another issue."
Wrong. Laws are made by legislative branch, not executive branch. OCCASIONALLY, the legislative branch SPECIFICALLY grants an agency the power to make a law. Schools don't have that. Regulations are REGULATIONS, not laws. Schools are executive branch, not legislative.
"Please provide a reference to the disorderly conduct law applicable to the jurisdiction in question and provide an explanation of how the conduct at issue is not within the scope of its prohibitions. Or are you just making stuff up?"
RTFA. Activity was described 1. Texting when the TEACHER, not a rule, told her to stop. (even if the school regulation had the force of law, the teacher did not. 2. Denying having a phone. 3. A search was made, apparently UNRESISTING, which found a phone 4. NOTHING else.
So We have disobeying a teacher which can in NO way be called disorderly conduct, people do that everyday, it is typical conduct in a school room, not 'disorderly. Same for lying about having a phone. So we have activities that were entirely typical, not disorderly. She allowed a search, did not resist. People that are disorderly don't allow searches.
Wrong. Totally. A law suit is NOT a police action. You call police when a law is broken, NOT when a rule is broken. The kid was NOT being 'disorderly', that was a trumped up charge. She violated a rule, not a law, no police should have been called.
In your example at work, you had someone trespassing. This girl did NOT trespass. She did NOT break the law.
Tons of unethical companies do it all the time. Have you heard of spyware? That is basically what they do. They use the same TOS statements to get away with this kind of thing.
When you are not a criminal, you don't need criminal tools. We don't let the super of a building keep bump keys, even if it is convenient for him. Instead he has to request and receive a copy of each resident's key if they allow it.
The online community has to learn that NO, you can't just do what you want. If you want a contract to be valid, then the other guy has to agree to it. The worse your contract, the fewer people will agree. If you worsen the TOS, then some of your people will leave you.
You do realize it is illegal to hire someone based on their gender? It's OK. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with admitting to a crime on the internet?:D
First, I agree that capital punishment is not a good idea. Second, your statements are NOT insightful, they are rathan balan and would convince me to be in favor of capital punishment if I did not know more about it.
1. You make the typical, rather foolish and blatantly wrong argument that "capital punishment solves nothing." No. It solves several problems. It punishes the guilty, prevents them from re-offending, and reduces our overpopulation problem. What you MEANT to say was that "it is not more effective than prison at preventing crime". As long people foolishly exxagerate the minor problems of capital punishment, you undermine our case. The problem with capital punishment is NOT that it is infective. It works, but not well.
2. The problem with Captial Punishment is two fold: A. Our legal system is imperfect and routinely convicts innocent people. DNA evidence indicates that around 5% of convictions are false. Killing the innocent means we get no opportunity to correct our mistakes. B. It is INSUFFICIENT penalty for the worst crimes. I want the SOBs that rape and kill children to be permenatly locked in prision and PREVENTED from killing themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I see, it is not a massive multiplayer game.
So basically this is a SPOG (Single Player Online Game)
In other words, You are the new exon-skipping overlord
Second, comparing motorscooters to cars is incredibally hard to do. Cars carry more, among other things. While it is true that 130 mpg is out there, some scooters get as little as 30 mpg. 130 needs a heavy performance upgrade designed to get that. The average US motorscooter mpg is about 75, not 90. If two people get in it, it plummets to below 50. Why? Because the weight being pushed goes from 500 lbs to 650 lbs. The car however doesn't change significantly whether it has one or two people, as the weight change goes from 1,500 pounds to 1,650 pounds.
Thirdly, scooters tend to be incredibally polluting. How do they get that nice mileage? They use a ONE STROKE engine, which pollutes more. As in 5 - 25 times more polluting. In the US, scooters are legally allowed to give off 5.7 times more CO than cars and nearly 24 times more unburned hydrocarbons, because the law recognizes the difficulty in making a clean one stroke engine. The Nano uses a two stroke engine, like all cars. It may use a bit more gas, but the pollution given off is MUCH MUCH less. Not the same as gas mileage, but your scooter no longer looks like a clear winner
India's carbon footprint will be going up no matter what we do. The Nano has a good MPG rating. Better than many hybrids. It's a good thing, not a pollution machine.
You left out the answers of:
4. Human lifespan expanded to over 1,000 years. Frankly, this is easier and more likely to do than #2 or #3.
5. Many many set of short hops. Alpha Centauri is 4 light years away. An antimatter powered ship can reach 0.1 C. It only takes 40 years to get there. That is one generation, not multiple ones.
6. FTL travel. Sorry, but no I don't fall for the "we don't know how to do it, so it must be impossible" stupidity that prevented people from trying things like travel faster than the speed of sound. Do you know many people smarter than you thought we could not reach the moon? Lose your arrogance and admit that you don't know everything about how the universe works.
The PPC (Powered Parachute Cars) don't need to take off or land at an airport. They are quite adapt at landing in 100 to 150 ft fields. (Runways are over 1,000 ft.) On the other hand, they do not come close to the 250 mph speed. Typically they are designed to travel at 25 mph to 30mp - they are sports equiptment and in an open cockpit, that feels VERY fast. But like I said, you can easily move that up to 100 mph. If you care about the feeling of speed, open the cockpit. If you care about getting from point A to point B in 1/2 the time, I think a network of parks licensed to land and take off would do it. But honestly, to really make this a consumer item, vertical take off would be best. Neither the folding wing nor the powered parachute is the best bet for that.
If you don't care about the sports license limits, I don't think it would be a problem to upgrade the engine, but then you would need the better pilot license to fly them.
Honestly, raising your top legal speed from 65 mph (most areas in the US), along the curving, traffic ridden roads to 100 mph as the bird flies, should alone be worth it for typical 'road trips' of less than 200 miles. It would more than cut your time in half, assuming typical driving conditions.
The real problem with going the Powered Parachute route is weather. A powered Parachute car works great as a daylight only, sunny weather vehicle. But I would not want to fly one in anything mroe than a light drizzle. The Fixed wing/foldable wing would almost certainly do a lot better in the rain.
This makes it a much better aircraft, but as always causes HUGE problems on the ground. It causes huge air-drag, even when foled up. They need to do it the other way. Make a good car that can also fly. Why? Because if flight is your major interest, then you always will need.
Specifically, go the powered parachute route. (Basic, non-street legal version here: http://www.easyflight.com/)
Your wing needs to be packable, not merely foldable - once. Once you do that, make it street legal, like this: http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/11/the-worlds-firs.html
Yes, it is a pusher prop instead of the more tradional forward based properller. This means the prop is not blocking the driver's view.
But the most important thing is that wing is CHEAP, and when not being used to fly, can get packed away into the trunk of your car.
Take poker for example. We have a standard bias of "unknown = 50%". This actually works pretty well for cases where information is not known. To make the winning software programs, they basically program in the rules that a human expert knows to be true. It is NOT that hard to instead program in a bunch of rules that a human FOOL 'knows' to be true. Just find some bad poker players and ask them what they do in certain circumstances.
-------------- Similarly, the pool game could be made more realistic. I noticed the first thing he did was have the computer select the highest possible point scorign shot, ignoring banking a shot unless it is set to super-expert. That is NOT what humans do. Bad pool players pick the EASIEST shot - i.e. the one that is most straight on and least distance. (I know, I am a bad pool player). As you get better, you raise your standards about what you think you can hit. So a moderate player looks among all the shots he thinks he can hit and takes the highest point one of that.
Part of the problem is you don't always SEE poor red light timing. It is not just the 4 second amber light. Another example of bad red light timing is whent he police do this:
Road A is a major road, heavily trafficked - You get 100 cars a minute. Road B is lightly trafficked - 10 cars a minute. Red light provides 1 minute for both Road A and Road B. Surprise Surprise you get cars stacke dup on Road A while Road B sits empty, encouraging scofflaws to ignore the red light. Proper timing is MORE time for the heavy road and less for the light road.
Then there is always the standard, simple trick. Interesection A is a high traffic interesection. Like all such high traffic intersections, it is SUPPOSED to be an "actuated" one. That is, they detect traffic on it (usually via induction loops), and set the timing based on the traffic. But they decide to save money on this by installing detection on the minor street approaches and major street left turns only. Just a set amount of time for the 'core'. Oh, and that money you saved by not instlaling full actuation? Buy a traffic light camera, of course.
Oh, and then there is my favorite 'timing problem'. Heavy use lights sometimes are set up as 'coordingated'. That means it is set up so that when travelling say North on a major road out of the city at 5 PM, the lights as block 1 turn green before block 2, and lastly block 3. But OOPS, someone seems to have put in a fourth street that turns green just as light 3 turns red.
If your city TRULY has a red light running problem then the solution is TECHNOLOGICAL, not criminal. You need to actually put in the right actuated lights, fix the coordinatedion, and lengthen yellow lights so that someone can actually get through the interesection. But that costs money to do, while installing red light cameras is profitable (but only if your city has screwed up traffic lights). Only after EVERY problem street has had these solutions tried should you even red light cameras. (I haven't even mentioned the Speed Camera "Pimping" game, - teen age kids make up a fake license plate duplicating the car of someone they dislike then intentinoally run a red light with a camera installed).
Part of the proof is in what you yourself describe. If you are having horrific crashes on a regular basis then your traffic interesection has a serious issue that NEEDS to be dealt with. Merely enforcing the law AFTER a crime has been committed is not enough - you need to actually FIX the intersection.
People do run red lights. Usually because they are ANGRY at a really badly timed intersection. There should NEVER be a case where you sit through a red light, watch it turn green, then watch it turn red again. That is a definition of poor timing. Better to make both sides wait twice as long, but at least get everyone in the que through in a single red light.
http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/traffic-light-cameras-bad-choice/
"House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) recently called for congressional hearings in the wake of a report that claims local governments have progressively shortened yellow-lights since 1985 to maximize fines, and have endangered motorists in the process. "
And then look here: http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/14/six-ities-busted-for-shortening-yellow-light/
"Chattanooga, Tennessee; Dallas, Texas; Springfield, Missouri; Lubbock, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; and Union City, California all cut the timing on their lights, and while some have paid back the fines, others have not. "
And for the international traveller: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/italian-red-light-cameras-rigged-with-shorter-yellow-lights.ars
"It turns out, however, that Arrighetti and a handful of public officials were allegedly a bit greedier than most. He's accused of conspiring with 63 municipal police, 39 local government officials, and the managers of seven different companies in order to rig the system so that it would turn from yellow to red quicker, therefore catching more motorists. "
I may be an idiot, but you can't read. I am NOT objecting because people intentionally red lights get caught. In fact I said that such a thing almost NEVER happens. I have a clue, you on the other hand an incompetent moron that can't read or understand a simple post. I repeat my initial statment: PEOPLE DO NOT INTENTIONALLY RUN ENOUGH RED LIGHTS TO MAKE THE CAMERAS WORTH WHILE. The majority of red light tickets are caused by red lights that have been timed incorrectly. That is my statement. If you learn to read, you might be able to argure with me. Till then, you are just an incompetent troll. (as is the idiot that marked you insightful without checking the context.
This means that:
1. People run red lights because either a. The light is POORLY timed, creating the accident. or b. They have made an error they truly did not want to do.
2. Case B is RARE. In fact, it happens so rarely that it is never profitable. The cost to install and maintain the red light camera always exceeeds the number of tickets you get waiting for case b.
3. This means that in order for red light cameras to be profitable, the lights they are installed in must be poorly timed.
pre-camera, the police would fix the red light. They used to do examine the red light timing every time they gave a ticket. Post camera, they pay a camera company to deal with the light - both the camera and the red light timing. Surprise, surprise, they don't fix the light's timing. If they do, the camera ceases to be profitable - and the company goes out of business. --------------
I don't like speed cameras because I think they subvert the justice system - but at least they don't cause accidents.
The lights slowly become badly timed, creating more tickets - and more deadly accidents.
Sorry, slashdot did not display the proper character. that is 9.5 micrometers (I tried to use Ansi character 181 in front of the m, the scientific notation for micrometers.) For further clarification, a human red blood cell is about 7 mirometers.
RTFA. It displays pictures, showing it heal a 9.5 m sized scratch.
The article does not clarify how exact they are. For example, there is a huge difference between only being able to identify that page A is still the original page A and being able to say that unknown page A came from Batch 12043, which according to our records was produced by X corporation, on Y Date, and sold to Z retailer on date W, using UPC code 90827452345 through 90827452356 Which they can do can dramatically alter the usefulness of the technology. I would be very surprised if they could do both.
One of the hardest part of police work is FINDING the guilty people. Catching them and proving guilt is generally pretty easy. So basically, this total idiot of a sheriff discovers a shortcut to doing his job. All he has to do is to answer the ads on Craigslist. But instead of doing his job and arresting all the pros on Craigslist, this moron decides to shut down his BIGGEST WEAPON.
Yes, Context is important. And the context you prove shows you are wrong. The problem is you are working on the assumption that everywhere EXCEPT a gay bar is a 'straight pick up place'. And that they were being rude about it, as opposed to simply stating a fact. Xbox is NOT a 'pickup bar for straights'. Moreover, they are NOT repeating saying it. They wrote it once in their profile. If you were to go to a random street corner and post a sign on a public message board saying "I like to screw chicks", and sign your name, ONCE, and someone was to come by and remove it, then hey, you would have the right to complain. Just like the gay person had the right to complain here.
Wrong. Laws are made by legislative branch, not executive branch. OCCASIONALLY, the legislative branch SPECIFICALLY grants an agency the power to make a law. Schools don't have that. Regulations are REGULATIONS, not laws. Schools are executive branch, not legislative.
"Please provide a reference to the disorderly conduct law applicable to the jurisdiction in question and provide an explanation of how the conduct at issue is not within the scope of its prohibitions. Or are you just making stuff up?"
RTFA. Activity was described 1. Texting when the TEACHER, not a rule, told her to stop. (even if the school regulation had the force of law, the teacher did not. 2. Denying having a phone. 3. A search was made, apparently UNRESISTING, which found a phone 4. NOTHING else.
So We have disobeying a teacher which can in NO way be called disorderly conduct, people do that everyday, it is typical conduct in a school room, not 'disorderly. Same for lying about having a phone. So we have activities that were entirely typical, not disorderly. She allowed a search, did not resist. People that are disorderly don't allow searches.
In your example at work, you had someone trespassing. This girl did NOT trespass. She did NOT break the law.
When you are not a criminal, you don't need criminal tools. We don't let the super of a building keep bump keys, even if it is convenient for him. Instead he has to request and receive a copy of each resident's key if they allow it.
The online community has to learn that NO, you can't just do what you want. If you want a contract to be valid, then the other guy has to agree to it. The worse your contract, the fewer people will agree. If you worsen the TOS, then some of your people will leave you.
Correct for most people this is a good plan. For spammers it is not. They will of course opt out of the restriction.
You do realize it is illegal to hire someone based on their gender? It's OK. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with admitting to a crime on the internet? :D
1. You make the typical, rather foolish and blatantly wrong argument that "capital punishment solves nothing." No. It solves several problems. It punishes the guilty, prevents them from re-offending, and reduces our overpopulation problem. What you MEANT to say was that "it is not more effective than prison at preventing crime". As long people foolishly exxagerate the minor problems of capital punishment, you undermine our case. The problem with capital punishment is NOT that it is infective. It works, but not well.
2. The problem with Captial Punishment is two fold: A. Our legal system is imperfect and routinely convicts innocent people. DNA evidence indicates that around 5% of convictions are false. Killing the innocent means we get no opportunity to correct our mistakes. B. It is INSUFFICIENT penalty for the worst crimes. I want the SOBs that rape and kill children to be permenatly locked in prision and PREVENTED from killing themselves.