No. You are wrong. The wierd part is you proved it yourself. Mainly because YOU were "wishwashy" about life, not me. You never gave a definition, you just said "Life is what we know".
Like you said, the word "life" has a specific meaning, but NOT the rather crappy one you use. While there are several in use (Schrodigner has a nice one about entropy), NONE of them restrict life to DNA based or even carbon based life forms. However "Life as we know it." is rather restricted to a small subset of carbon based forms. If you ignore the argumetns about Viruses, we don't even have any non-DNA based carbon life. If you include Viruses, then we have some RNA based life forms that are not DNA based.
The best definition I have seen is a complex thing that eats, grows/reproduces, and adapts to the environment.
That definition negates fire (complexity), negates normal - non-movie - crystals (adapts), and most other things.
It however does not negate things such as a silicon based life form, or many other such things.
The basic problem is you have not made ANY effort at all to look up the definition of the word you are arguing about. Instead you just made one up, which is not a smart thing to do.
No one is an expert on that.
That is one thing that pisses me off. We constantly have people saying moronic things like "Gas giants can't sustain life."
We no so little about them, yet we have arrogant people saying things are impossible.
The honest truth is that we have so little experience with conditions outside the planet that we can in NO way make statements about life in general.
Pretty much every single statement about life made by a human being should really have an asterick saying "Life as we know know it."
For ages we used to think that organic chemicals must be rare in temperatures below zero because with lower temperatures, less reactions occure. But instead we found that if the ice was formed from water that was at ONE time at a reasonable temperature, then orgainc chemiclas are CONCENTRATED by the ice, as they clump together. If the ice is subject to a cycle of warming then freezing, this leads to more common organic reactions than if you just leave the water alone in the first place. The chemiclas clump together when they freeze, then react when you heat them.
You do not understand the concept of frivolous law suit. You may disagree with the idea behind the lawsuit, but it is hardly obvious.
Part of the problem here is you are making a really STUPID assumption:
That the paper ballots are designed to be clear and easy to use.
While yes it is usually possible to design a clear and easy to use paper ballot, that is not always the case. While the most obvious recent example is the famed Buterfly ballot of Florida, it is VERY easy to design a ballot that is dificult to understand if you want to do that. Simply offseting the check boxes by 1/4 of the line height can do a lot to make it hard to understand correctly
More importantly, what you are proposing is that ballots be some kind of intellegence test. But intelligence tests for ballots were declared ILLEGAL, back when they were mainly used to disenfranchise poor ex-slaves and their descendents.
So sorry, but your proposed reasoning is not only foolish but has in fact been judged wrong by the Supreme Court of the US.
But your argument is not insightful. In fact it is totally devoid of insight, you misses our point entirely.
We were discussing the specific issue of GIFTS.
Getting someone an Iphone as a Gift, unless they specifically begged for it, is rather stupid. If you were to go up to me and offer me one FOR FREE (and insist I keep it, instead of selling it), I would refuse. Why? Because I don't want to pay the $60+/month.
Yeah, other people might, but it is a the entire point of this threaad is why might people buy an Iphone and not activate it.
One possible explanation is simple: Moron friends/parents/etc. bought 'the new cool phone' for people that were no way willing to spend the large amount of money. So tons of them were bought but not activated.
Simple, insightful.
Your argument is a reasonable explanation of why someone might buy one themselves, but has nothing to do with the issue of gifts for 3rd parties.
Or maybe were RETURNED (or sold on Ebay or passed on like a fruit cake or just locked in a drawer) because the recepient has no desire to sign a contract for $100+/month.
Ownership is far worse than income. I own nothing, my corporation owns everything, they just provide me with a corporate car, corporate vacation home, etc. etc. etc.
The problem is that the more money you have, the easier it is to do complex things, such as buying all your owned things outside the country, where they have a high income tax but low ownership tax.
As a general, rule, a graduated tax on income is pretty hard to beat, as long as you make sure to count EVERYTHING as income, even 'corproate provided stuff.'.
The movie counts as a derivative work that extends the copyright, as long as it is published in less than 10 years after the original book.
Basically this creates a HUGE incentive for authors to serialize things. You have ten years to come out with a sequel or you lose certain rights.
Personally, I think that is a good idea. Push the authors (like say ME!) to get things written in a reasonable amount of time.
If they don't do it, then they can still capitilize on selling combo deals (i.e. buy the DVD for $35 and you get this free hardcover book of the original also).
The main idea is NO, you DON'T get everything for nothing. You want more rights, fine, you have to give us more stuff.
I am currently attempting to write a novel (170+ pages done, first novel so probably won't get published.)
It is Sci-fi and one of the things I do in the novel is have a world with drastically reduced copyrights.
The basic point is that given real world entertainment (all percentages are wild ass guesses, but I would be shocked if they were far from the truth):
Most works of entertainment don't make money. Copyright on them is just a pain in the ass, not even worth the money it takes to sue.
Of those that do make money, 95% of them never make any money 10 years after first publication.
Of those that do make any money after 10 years, 90% of the cash is made in the first 5 years from publishing.
This pretty much applies to songs, movies, books, plays anything.
Net result is we have a TON of laws preventing enjoyment that do not in any way affect the cash the artists or even the Distributers/Producers get.
So in my fictional utopia, basic copyrights are 5-10 years (5 for shorter things like an hour TV show or a short story, 10 for larger works). They can however be extended for a short period of time if the author creates a sequel or related work. I.E. You write a book you get 10 years. Then you make a 2nd in the series, or even a movie out of the book you get another 5 years added to your book copyright (assuming the movie came out before the book's copyright ended.
This is a simplified version, but you get the idea.
The US won't do that as we still consider ourselves to be the entertainment king of the world and see it as a balance of trade issue. But if you check, you see that Bollywood makes more movies and MORE MONEY than than Hollywood does now adays.
OK people. Guess which of the following is allowed on an airplane as carry on:
4 ounces of water.
An unloaded pistol, with no bullets.
Any kind of BB gun (including spring guns), with no pellets.
A putter (golf club)
Any sized Hammer
8 inch screwdriver
A Snow Globe (ANY SIZE)
30 Lbs of Uranium-235 (More than enough to make a bomb)
The TSA deserves to have their head handed them to on a platter. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to restrit passengers from taking anything dangerous onto the plane, simply because the passengers are themselves dangerous. Efforts should instead be made to restrict only those items that have been shown to be particularly dangerous, such as actual weapons and ammunition, not things that someone once theorized might be useable to destroy a plane.
The poster discussed Mr. Reiss. While the very intelligent Mr Reis produced a machine that while it could transmit sounds, it was of such low quality that it took someone significant training to be able to understand what was being said. It was not a real telephone, as the phone in telephone refers to speaking. It was more a tele-audio, as it could transmit sounds, if not clearly enough to understand.
This is not to insult him, Mr. Reis was a relatively undereducated man, and deserves more recognition for his brillance.
DVD's on average begin to experience decay within TWO YEARS of creation.
While the minimal decay is not noticed by you or me, it is noticeable by machines that copy things.
To obtain the same high end storage with no detectable loss offered by raid storage, you pretty much would need to copy the DVD's every 18 months or so. Expenses for doing this mount up pretty quickly.
Are the people at Premier Election Solutions fools??? I am sure they think they have great machines.
SO WHAT?
There is so much public outcry against their machines, that they had to change their name from Diebold to Premier. Look is it THAT hard to realize that even if their machines are perfect at what they do they have a big image problem and no, changing the name won't solve it.
You want real intelligent advice, here:
Go through the YEARS of bad publicity. Pick out the most respectable of the people that despise your machines.
Invite them to make a presentation of what features they want in a voting machine.
Instant free consumer research. Then just have your designers create two or three models:
1. Economy model that offers only the features that are cheap to add on.
2. Moderate model that offers some of the more stuff that costs a bit more.
3. Deluxe model that offers every SINGLE one of the features that their critics asked for.
BOOM. They have just turned their worst weakness into their biggest strengths. I bet at least on of these models would be a huge seller.
Even if none of the models sold, they can advertise them and say "Don't blame us - we tried. Those cheap SOBs refused to pay for it."
You don't even have to begin construction until you get an order in. Worst case scenario, they have paid their designers for a learning project.
While it was illegal before, the penalties were not clearly stated. It was left up to the judges, some of whom gave simple verbal warnings.
Sort of the same way it is illegal for a government to deny you the right to free speech. There is no jail term or monetary fine declared by law. Now they give actual penalties.
The law basically made everything a lot more explicit.
I do e-discovery related document loading and exporting.
I can tell you the following:
1. It is a big business.
2. It is not "pointless".
3. The reason the laws were passed is that people were intentionally deleting documents or worse LYING and claiming they had deleted it when back ups were clearly present. They lied because of the expense it would take to recover the back-ups. Honestly, was it that hard to have the lawyers talk directly to the tech people, instead of too middleman that cared more about money than their legal responsibilities?
4. The law at heart simply states that if you have documents then deleting it BECAUSE of a legal action is illegal.
5. The law clearly allows you to routinely delete documents, say 1/year, or even every month.
6. All it really takes to satisfy the law is a commitment to a reasonable data-retention policy. The only businesses that don't or can't comply are
A. those that have been giving their IT department the short-shift, not providing a reasonable amount of cash for data and back-ups.
B. Those that don't realize that after you are SUED or CHARGED with a crime means you have to spend money on the law-suit. That includes the responsibility of saving and organzing the data you collected.
We need the following laws:
1. It it NEVER illegal to make any audio recording of an on-duty government employee
2. It is never illegal to make a video or other recording og a clothed on-duty government employee.
3. It is illegal for any government employee to request or insist that such a device be deactivated. Attempting to do so results in a fine equal to one day's pay. If violence was used, they are too be dismissed immediately, even if it was 'justified' by other actions. I.E. If you tell them to stop filming and they hit you, then you hit them back, you get fired even though 'they started it.'
4. If a government employee takes possesion of a a recording device that is not theirs and a recording is damaged, it must be returned in 100% working condition, with a copy of any recordings on it, within 2 days. Failure results in an investigation by Police, or by Internal Affairs if they are police. If a court case finds that there is a preponderous evidence that the employee intentionally damaged the device or the recording, than that employee will be dismissed from their government position. If the court find they did it beyond a shadow of a doubt, they are to be arrested and tried for grand theft.
No, I said that people keep pets because they can't find someone to love them.
Do some ven diagrams. Lonely people is the big circle. The short men and overweight women are circles that interesect with the big lonely one, but neither is completely contained - their are short men/overweight women that have found companions.
Add a 4th circle that again is not completely contained by any of the other 3. This is the circle of pet owners and it contains a large section (more than 1/2) of the lonely people.
Lets face it, people are shallow. Men won't date overweight women, women won't date short men. The only difference is men are not proud of their prejudice, while women will state it out-right.
There are a lot of wonderful human beings that simply can't find someone willing to love them despite their physical flaws.
Actually you made one blatantly WRONG statement. (Even ignoring the HIGHLY suspect statement that rape is 6x as reported.) Unreported rapes do NOT raise the recividism rate. Same for not-prosecuted.
In fact it LOWERS the recividism rate.
Huh? Don't understand that?
Let me explain. There are basically 3 possibile criminals.
A. One shot person. Women or Man does it once, but realizes it is wrong and never does it again. (Yes, women rape - check FARK, at least one new story every day about some female teacher raping an underage kid.)
guy.
B. Does it once, doesn't get caught keeps doing it till they get caught, then never does it again.
C. Serial Rapist. Can not help it. Does it, get's caught, gets out, does it again. Sick Sick Sick
RECIDIVISM is ONLY TYPE C. That is the definition of Recidivism. It is the person that does it after he is arrested and convicted, not the person that does it 10 times than stops after being arrested. That is the definition used for Bank Robbery, Murder and all other crimes - a guy that robs 4 banks, goes to jail for a year and never robs again does not count as a Recidivist.
Unreported rapes increases the Number of NON-RECIVIDISTIC rapes, not the number of recividistic rapes.
------------
More importantly, you left out the comparison rate for non-sexual crimes, which is WAY over 50%.
Leaving that out makes you totally and entirely wrong. Even if you were correct that the real rate of recividism for sexual crimes was 80%, if the rate for bank robbery and murder was 99%, then you would be wrong about sex crimes can't helping it. Without knowing the non-sexual recividism rate you are just spouting propaganda, not making any sense at all.
P.S, the real rate of recidivism is around 20-25%. That is , about 20% of people convicted for sex crimes will someday, before they die, commit another sexual crime. This is FAR lower than the appoximate 50-70% for non-sexual crimes.
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%."
But more importantly, I know you are entirely wrong because of what you did NOT say. Specifically, you left out the repeat rate for NON-sexual crimes as a comparison. Even if the FALSE information you put out was correct it is meaningless without comparing it to the non-sexual crimes. The Long term recidivism rates for sexual crimes are 20%-25%. That compares with over 70% for NON-Sexual crimes.
Yes, sex crimes are under-reported. So are non-sex crimes. Computer crimes are much less likely to be reported than sexual crimes, and the criminals have a FAR higher recidivism rate.
You want to spout statistics that go against what I said? Fine. Show me the reports. I gave you some, now you show your reports. Not that hard to find, just check the internet.
Ig you did check the internet you will find that the 'high' rates for sex crimes recidivism is for SPECIFIC SUBSTYPES, not the general category of sex crimes..
That is if you restrict it to adult, extrafamilial sexual abusers (not rape, abusers), you get numbers above 50%. But even that is only ON PAR with regular criminals, not high.
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%
Some people here simply do not understand how armor works. So they think "this thing won't protect you, because it doesn't stop the energy/pressure, it just doesn't break".
Armor is not just a single layer of stuff, it is multiple layers. Yes, this stuff by itself is not worth much as armor, but layer it on top of other thigns, and you got something special.
Each layer stops something else. This layer does not break, so it stops penetration. Make a cell structure of this, fill it with something else, like say SAND, and that pressure wave you were so worried about becomes contained. Two layers of a cell structure like this, with sand in between them, and the entire explosive kinetic energy is contained, converted to heat, deflect out, or otherwise dealt with.
Slashdot Mirror
Like you said, the word "life" has a specific meaning, but NOT the rather crappy one you use. While there are several in use (Schrodigner has a nice one about entropy), NONE of them restrict life to DNA based or even carbon based life forms. However "Life as we know it." is rather restricted to a small subset of carbon based forms. If you ignore the argumetns about Viruses, we don't even have any non-DNA based carbon life. If you include Viruses, then we have some RNA based life forms that are not DNA based.
The best definition I have seen is a complex thing that eats, grows/reproduces, and adapts to the environment.
That definition negates fire (complexity), negates normal - non-movie - crystals (adapts), and most other things.
It however does not negate things such as a silicon based life form, or many other such things.
The basic problem is you have not made ANY effort at all to look up the definition of the word you are arguing about. Instead you just made one up, which is not a smart thing to do.
No one is an expert on that. That is one thing that pisses me off. We constantly have people saying moronic things like "Gas giants can't sustain life." We no so little about them, yet we have arrogant people saying things are impossible. The honest truth is that we have so little experience with conditions outside the planet that we can in NO way make statements about life in general. Pretty much every single statement about life made by a human being should really have an asterick saying "Life as we know know it." For ages we used to think that organic chemicals must be rare in temperatures below zero because with lower temperatures, less reactions occure. But instead we found that if the ice was formed from water that was at ONE time at a reasonable temperature, then orgainc chemiclas are CONCENTRATED by the ice, as they clump together. If the ice is subject to a cycle of warming then freezing, this leads to more common organic reactions than if you just leave the water alone in the first place. The chemiclas clump together when they freeze, then react when you heat them.
Part of the problem here is you are making a really STUPID assumption:
That the paper ballots are designed to be clear and easy to use.
While yes it is usually possible to design a clear and easy to use paper ballot, that is not always the case. While the most obvious recent example is the famed Buterfly ballot of Florida, it is VERY easy to design a ballot that is dificult to understand if you want to do that. Simply offseting the check boxes by 1/4 of the line height can do a lot to make it hard to understand correctly
More importantly, what you are proposing is that ballots be some kind of intellegence test. But intelligence tests for ballots were declared ILLEGAL, back when they were mainly used to disenfranchise poor ex-slaves and their descendents.
So sorry, but your proposed reasoning is not only foolish but has in fact been judged wrong by the Supreme Court of the US.
But your argument is not insightful. In fact it is totally devoid of insight, you misses our point entirely.
We were discussing the specific issue of GIFTS.
Getting someone an Iphone as a Gift, unless they specifically begged for it, is rather stupid. If you were to go up to me and offer me one FOR FREE (and insist I keep it, instead of selling it), I would refuse. Why? Because I don't want to pay the $60+/month.
Yeah, other people might, but it is a the entire point of this threaad is why might people buy an Iphone and not activate it.
One possible explanation is simple: Moron friends/parents/etc. bought 'the new cool phone' for people that were no way willing to spend the large amount of money. So tons of them were bought but not activated.
Simple, insightful.
Your argument is a reasonable explanation of why someone might buy one themselves, but has nothing to do with the issue of gifts for 3rd parties.
Or maybe were RETURNED (or sold on Ebay or passed on like a fruit cake or just locked in a drawer) because the recepient has no desire to sign a contract for $100+/month.
The problem is that the more money you have, the easier it is to do complex things, such as buying all your owned things outside the country, where they have a high income tax but low ownership tax.
As a general, rule, a graduated tax on income is pretty hard to beat, as long as you make sure to count EVERYTHING as income, even 'corproate provided stuff.'.
The movie counts as a derivative work that extends the copyright, as long as it is published in less than 10 years after the original book. Basically this creates a HUGE incentive for authors to serialize things. You have ten years to come out with a sequel or you lose certain rights. Personally, I think that is a good idea. Push the authors (like say ME!) to get things written in a reasonable amount of time. If they don't do it, then they can still capitilize on selling combo deals (i.e. buy the DVD for $35 and you get this free hardcover book of the original also). The main idea is NO, you DON'T get everything for nothing. You want more rights, fine, you have to give us more stuff.
It is Sci-fi and one of the things I do in the novel is have a world with drastically reduced copyrights.
The basic point is that given real world entertainment (all percentages are wild ass guesses, but I would be shocked if they were far from the truth):
Most works of entertainment don't make money. Copyright on them is just a pain in the ass, not even worth the money it takes to sue.
Of those that do make money, 95% of them never make any money 10 years after first publication.
Of those that do make any money after 10 years, 90% of the cash is made in the first 5 years from publishing.
This pretty much applies to songs, movies, books, plays anything.
Net result is we have a TON of laws preventing enjoyment that do not in any way affect the cash the artists or even the Distributers/Producers get.
So in my fictional utopia, basic copyrights are 5-10 years (5 for shorter things like an hour TV show or a short story, 10 for larger works). They can however be extended for a short period of time if the author creates a sequel or related work. I.E. You write a book you get 10 years. Then you make a 2nd in the series, or even a movie out of the book you get another 5 years added to your book copyright (assuming the movie came out before the book's copyright ended.
This is a simplified version, but you get the idea.
The US won't do that as we still consider ourselves to be the entertainment king of the world and see it as a balance of trade issue. But if you check, you see that Bollywood makes more movies and MORE MONEY than than Hollywood does now adays.
Easily detectable via a geiger counter
The most dangerous thing on that list by FAR
Dangerous just to be near, let alone craft into an explosive device.
4 ounces of water.
An unloaded pistol, with no bullets.
Any kind of BB gun (including spring guns), with no pellets.
A putter (golf club)
Any sized Hammer
8 inch screwdriver
A Snow Globe (ANY SIZE)
30 Lbs of Uranium-235 (More than enough to make a bomb)
The TSA deserves to have their head handed them to on a platter. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to restrit passengers from taking anything dangerous onto the plane, simply because the passengers are themselves dangerous. Efforts should instead be made to restrict only those items that have been shown to be particularly dangerous, such as actual weapons and ammunition, not things that someone once theorized might be useable to destroy a plane.
The facts of this care are clear: a chinese citizen is suing a chinese governmental body about censureship.
Everything else is rather picune details that are not relevant to the story, even if they are relevant to the legal case.
This is not to insult him, Mr. Reis was a relatively undereducated man, and deserves more recognition for his brillance.
I mean really. My email is overflowing, but a search finds stuff right away.
DVD's on average begin to experience decay within TWO YEARS of creation.
While the minimal decay is not noticed by you or me, it is noticeable by machines that copy things.
To obtain the same high end storage with no detectable loss offered by raid storage, you pretty much would need to copy the DVD's every 18 months or so. Expenses for doing this mount up pretty quickly.
SO WHAT?
There is so much public outcry against their machines, that they had to change their name from Diebold to Premier. Look is it THAT hard to realize that even if their machines are perfect at what they do they have a big image problem and no, changing the name won't solve it.
You want real intelligent advice, here:
Go through the YEARS of bad publicity. Pick out the most respectable of the people that despise your machines.
Invite them to make a presentation of what features they want in a voting machine.
Instant free consumer research. Then just have your designers create two or three models:
1. Economy model that offers only the features that are cheap to add on.
2. Moderate model that offers some of the more stuff that costs a bit more.
3. Deluxe model that offers every SINGLE one of the features that their critics asked for.
BOOM. They have just turned their worst weakness into their biggest strengths. I bet at least on of these models would be a huge seller. Even if none of the models sold, they can advertise them and say "Don't blame us - we tried. Those cheap SOBs refused to pay for it."
You don't even have to begin construction until you get an order in. Worst case scenario, they have paid their designers for a learning project.
Sort of the same way it is illegal for a government to deny you the right to free speech. There is no jail term or monetary fine declared by law. Now they give actual penalties.
The law basically made everything a lot more explicit.
I can tell you the following:
1. It is a big business.
2. It is not "pointless".
3. The reason the laws were passed is that people were intentionally deleting documents or worse LYING and claiming they had deleted it when back ups were clearly present. They lied because of the expense it would take to recover the back-ups. Honestly, was it that hard to have the lawyers talk directly to the tech people, instead of too middleman that cared more about money than their legal responsibilities?
4. The law at heart simply states that if you have documents then deleting it BECAUSE of a legal action is illegal.
5. The law clearly allows you to routinely delete documents, say 1/year, or even every month.
6. All it really takes to satisfy the law is a commitment to a reasonable data-retention policy. The only businesses that don't or can't comply are
A. those that have been giving their IT department the short-shift, not providing a reasonable amount of cash for data and back-ups.
B. Those that don't realize that after you are SUED or CHARGED with a crime means you have to spend money on the law-suit. That includes the responsibility of saving and organzing the data you collected.
In the same way, you can't arrest someone for speaking, but you can arrest them not having a permit for a demonstration.
Any government employee changing the launch codes should CERTAINLY be doing it in a private area where it was illegal for citizens to trespass.
You arrest the citizend doing that recording for trespassing etc. Not for the filming itself.
Similarly, you arrest the guy filming the lawyer for violating the CLIENTS rights, as you do the guy the guy filming the doctor.
But you can not arrest them for filming the state employeee.
Really not that hard to understand, your objection is rather simplistic and is exactly the kind of thing that judges know how to deal with.
2. It is never illegal to make a video or other recording og a clothed on-duty government employee.
3. It is illegal for any government employee to request or insist that such a device be deactivated. Attempting to do so results in a fine equal to one day's pay. If violence was used, they are too be dismissed immediately, even if it was 'justified' by other actions. I.E. If you tell them to stop filming and they hit you, then you hit them back, you get fired even though 'they started it.'
4. If a government employee takes possesion of a a recording device that is not theirs and a recording is damaged, it must be returned in 100% working condition, with a copy of any recordings on it, within 2 days. Failure results in an investigation by Police, or by Internal Affairs if they are police. If a court case finds that there is a preponderous evidence that the employee intentionally damaged the device or the recording, than that employee will be dismissed from their government position. If the court find they did it beyond a shadow of a doubt, they are to be arrested and tried for grand theft.
No, I said that people keep pets because they can't find someone to love them. Do some ven diagrams. Lonely people is the big circle. The short men and overweight women are circles that interesect with the big lonely one, but neither is completely contained - their are short men/overweight women that have found companions. Add a 4th circle that again is not completely contained by any of the other 3. This is the circle of pet owners and it contains a large section (more than 1/2) of the lonely people.
There are a lot of wonderful human beings that simply can't find someone willing to love them despite their physical flaws.
Hence the large number of pets people have.
Huh? Don't understand that? Let me explain. There are basically 3 possibile criminals. A. One shot person. Women or Man does it once, but realizes it is wrong and never does it again. (Yes, women rape - check FARK, at least one new story every day about some female teacher raping an underage kid.) guy.
B. Does it once, doesn't get caught keeps doing it till they get caught, then never does it again.
C. Serial Rapist. Can not help it. Does it, get's caught, gets out, does it again. Sick Sick Sick
RECIDIVISM is ONLY TYPE C. That is the definition of Recidivism. It is the person that does it after he is arrested and convicted, not the person that does it 10 times than stops after being arrested. That is the definition used for Bank Robbery, Murder and all other crimes - a guy that robs 4 banks, goes to jail for a year and never robs again does not count as a Recidivist.
Unreported rapes increases the Number of NON-RECIVIDISTIC rapes, not the number of recividistic rapes. ------------
More importantly, you left out the comparison rate for non-sexual crimes, which is WAY over 50%.
Leaving that out makes you totally and entirely wrong. Even if you were correct that the real rate of recividism for sexual crimes was 80%, if the rate for bank robbery and murder was 99%, then you would be wrong about sex crimes can't helping it. Without knowing the non-sexual recividism rate you are just spouting propaganda, not making any sense at all.
P.S, the real rate of recidivism is around 20-25%. That is , about 20% of people convicted for sex crimes will someday, before they die, commit another sexual crime. This is FAR lower than the appoximate 50-70% for non-sexual crimes.
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%."
But more importantly, I know you are entirely wrong because of what you did NOT say. Specifically, you left out the repeat rate for NON-sexual crimes as a comparison. Even if the FALSE information you put out was correct it is meaningless without comparing it to the non-sexual crimes. The Long term recidivism rates for sexual crimes are 20%-25%. That compares with over 70% for NON-Sexual crimes.
Yes, sex crimes are under-reported. So are non-sex crimes. Computer crimes are much less likely to be reported than sexual crimes, and the criminals have a FAR higher recidivism rate.
You want to spout statistics that go against what I said? Fine. Show me the reports. I gave you some, now you show your reports. Not that hard to find, just check the internet.
Ig you did check the internet you will find that the 'high' rates for sex crimes recidivism is for SPECIFIC SUBSTYPES, not the general category of sex crimes..
That is if you restrict it to adult, extrafamilial sexual abusers (not rape, abusers), you get numbers above 50%. But even that is only ON PAR with regular criminals, not high.
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%
Armor is not just a single layer of stuff, it is multiple layers. Yes, this stuff by itself is not worth much as armor, but layer it on top of other thigns, and you got something special.
Each layer stops something else. This layer does not break, so it stops penetration. Make a cell structure of this, fill it with something else, like say SAND, and that pressure wave you were so worried about becomes contained. Two layers of a cell structure like this, with sand in between them, and the entire explosive kinetic energy is contained, converted to heat, deflect out, or otherwise dealt with.