No, of course it's not perfect. But in practice, the emissions systems on a lot of cars are effectively useless as well.
Having your emissions in one spot instead of millions also makes inspections and regulations a lot easier to implement in an effective manner.
And the most important aspect is that electric cars are "energy agnostic", because electricity is electricity, no matter where it comes from. By breaking the dependency on liquid hydrocarbons, you make it a lot easier to transition to nuclear or renewable power, with significantly lessened emissions compared to coal and oil. Biofuels are a nice stopgap, but electric drivetrains are the future.
We got HD Voice (wideband audio) years ago with the rollout of 3G, the increase in quality was huge over basic GSM and POTS. VoLTE and wifi calling are the next steps, and will meet or exceed current wideband VoIP quality.
Haha, you're kinda cute. "Failure to thrive", that's rich. I'm thriving like a motherfucker and set for life (and for future generations of my family), despite not sharing your views. But fair play to you for not knowing this, since we don't actually know each other.
You very specifically did not answer how you would even begin to split trials into three arbitrary categories, or who would set these categories. What you're proposing is a "guilty no matter what" judgement for some crimes, which is a complete mockery of justice. Not even "guilty until proven innocent", you're literally proposing "guilty no matter what".
Capital punishment is a barbaric practice not fit for any modern society. Nothing justifies murder, not even murder.
But where do you draw the lines? Who gets to determine on which side of the line a particular case falls? You've just introduced sentencing without a proper trial.
And are you really ready to accept the murder of innocent people, just because you want to make absolutely sure that no criminal goes unpunished?
I take the opposite view. I would rather let 10 guilty people go free than have even 1 innocent person punished for a crime they did not commit.
There is no way to put this gently, so I'll just say it straight. Your views sicken me to my very core.
Punishment for crimes is not revenge, I'm sorry you've misunderstood that. It's about keeping dangerous people away from the public, and hopefully rehabilitating them.
Luckily, we're a lot more enlightened than you seem to think.
You may also have heard of it as "negative income tax".
And saying that Adam Smith was not hugely fundamental to modern libertarianism is extremely ignorant. He is consistently brought up in arguments put forth by libertarians, along with Friedman, Mises et. al.
That it's just guaranteed income, not guaranteed home economics advice.
The GP tries to argue that UBI will never work because people are wasteful with their money. But if that were true, it would be equally pointless to pay any wages at all, since people would also just waste them. It's a stupid-ass strawman argument.
Look at the recidivism rate in Norway compared to the rate in the US or even France. Much, much lower.
Please show me where capital punishment has ever deterred another would-be criminal. If that was the case, you would have barely any crime at all in the US, right?
Cut off from the rest of the prison population, only allowed extremely limited visits, no internet connection and so on.
OK, so it's not 100% complete isolation like in an American concrete torture box, but it's the highest degree of isolation possible in the Norwegian system.
No one "gets off" on keeping Breivik in isolation, just as hopefully no one "gets off" on killing him.
And no one has any right to take a life, doesn't matter if it's capital punishment, war or any other circumstance. It's still murder. In some cases, such as self-defense, it may be considered manslaughter instead, or you may be found innocent because the danger to your own life was greater. In the end, whether a court has found you guilty or not, you have still taken a human life.
The taking of a human life can never justify the taking of a single other human life. Never.
Slashdot Mirror
No, of course it's not perfect. But in practice, the emissions systems on a lot of cars are effectively useless as well.
Having your emissions in one spot instead of millions also makes inspections and regulations a lot easier to implement in an effective manner.
And the most important aspect is that electric cars are "energy agnostic", because electricity is electricity, no matter where it comes from. By breaking the dependency on liquid hydrocarbons, you make it a lot easier to transition to nuclear or renewable power, with significantly lessened emissions compared to coal and oil. Biofuels are a nice stopgap, but electric drivetrains are the future.
Emissions controls on a big stationary power plant is much easier and much more efficient than emissions controls on cars.
We got HD Voice (wideband audio) years ago with the rollout of 3G, the increase in quality was huge over basic GSM and POTS. VoLTE and wifi calling are the next steps, and will meet or exceed current wideband VoIP quality.
Source: I work for a major European telco/ISP.
Haha, you're kinda cute. "Failure to thrive", that's rich. I'm thriving like a motherfucker and set for life (and for future generations of my family), despite not sharing your views. But fair play to you for not knowing this, since we don't actually know each other.
You very specifically did not answer how you would even begin to split trials into three arbitrary categories, or who would set these categories. What you're proposing is a "guilty no matter what" judgement for some crimes, which is a complete mockery of justice. Not even "guilty until proven innocent", you're literally proposing "guilty no matter what".
Capital punishment is a barbaric practice not fit for any modern society. Nothing justifies murder, not even murder.
But where do you draw the lines? Who gets to determine on which side of the line a particular case falls? You've just introduced sentencing without a proper trial.
And are you really ready to accept the murder of innocent people, just because you want to make absolutely sure that no criminal goes unpunished?
I take the opposite view. I would rather let 10 guilty people go free than have even 1 innocent person punished for a crime they did not commit.
There is no way to put this gently, so I'll just say it straight. Your views sicken me to my very core.
Punishment for crimes is not revenge, I'm sorry you've misunderstood that. It's about keeping dangerous people away from the public, and hopefully rehabilitating them.
Luckily, we're a lot more enlightened than you seem to think.
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/...
You may also have heard of it as "negative income tax".
And saying that Adam Smith was not hugely fundamental to modern libertarianism is extremely ignorant. He is consistently brought up in arguments put forth by libertarians, along with Friedman, Mises et. al.
That it's just guaranteed income, not guaranteed home economics advice.
The GP tries to argue that UBI will never work because people are wasteful with their money. But if that were true, it would be equally pointless to pay any wages at all, since people would also just waste them. It's a stupid-ass strawman argument.
So you're perfectly OK with thousands and thousands of innocent men and women being murdered, just so you can fulfill your revenge fantasies?
No, we have modern justice systems to handle the issues that revenge "solved" in the old days. Unrestrained revenge leads to vigilantism and chaos.
Would you rather we go back to tarring and feathering, and lynch mobs?
Robots and people who genuinely want those jobs, because yes, they actually do exist.
And people also made stupid-ass decisions with money from their jobs. What's your point?
It's guaranteed basic income, not "guaranteed food on the table no matter how you choose to spend your money".
People with jobs also throw their money away or get swindled by criminals. Should we stop paying them, then?
People just can't wrap their minds around the elegant and straightforward beauty of Guaranteed Basic Income.
And the best part? It was originally proposed by Adam Smith, one of the patron saints of libertarianism :-)
And by "society" you mean who? The judges and juries who have made countless mistakes already and condemned innocent people to death?
Revenge is a downward spiral. We should be better than that.
If you're ready to take a life, you need serious help.
Apparently a lot of slashdotters, to my sad realization.
Look at the recidivism rate in Norway compared to the rate in the US or even France. Much, much lower.
Please show me where capital punishment has ever deterred another would-be criminal. If that was the case, you would have barely any crime at all in the US, right?
So, who gets to decide who lives and who dies?
Even though he took 77 innocent lives, that does not in any way justify the taking of even a single additional human life.
And no, my argument is not "then the terrorists win", it's "then violence and hatred wins". We must not give in to bloodlust and hatred.
Why? Do you get off on other people's suffering?
Cut off from the rest of the prison population, only allowed extremely limited visits, no internet connection and so on.
OK, so it's not 100% complete isolation like in an American concrete torture box, but it's the highest degree of isolation possible in the Norwegian system.
No one "gets off" on keeping Breivik in isolation, just as hopefully no one "gets off" on killing him.
And no one has any right to take a life, doesn't matter if it's capital punishment, war or any other circumstance. It's still murder. In some cases, such as self-defense, it may be considered manslaughter instead, or you may be found innocent because the danger to your own life was greater. In the end, whether a court has found you guilty or not, you have still taken a human life.
The taking of a human life can never justify the taking of a single other human life. Never.
So who sets the thresholds? Are you really prepared to take a life? If so, you're no better than him.
Why?
What purpose does violence serve, apart from making us distrust each other?