Some of us idiots think that this whole current process, whereby prosecutors (who are answerable to no-one) control outcomes through plea deals, is a terrible perversion of justice because it completely short circuits due process.
I figured it had to be a reference to something, but I didn't know what. FWIW, this is one of the very few times in my life that I have been considered insufficiently nerdy.
Why would anyone choose to watch a show called 'Halt and Catch Fire' without additional information? The name isn't catchy or poetic, and doesn't convey any information concerning what the show is about.
I'm not trying to be unpleasant, but I did literally read more than a dozen articles, each one talking about a different event. I overstated my case when I said 'any medical examiner,' but my original statement was based on personal experience of local events (one in San Francisco and one in southern Utah, many years ago) where people died after being tazed, and the things I read while doing research at that time. The medical examiner in the little town privately said that it would be dangerous to his career to implicate Tazer in the death.
How tiresome. Citations are appropriate when making outlandish or extraordinary claims, but it is perfectly reasonable to know things without having recently read about them online. In this case, a simple Google search for 'Taser challenges medical examiners' turns up - in addition to the Reuters article mentioned in the original post - dozens of cases, from Canada, the UK, and the US, that support my assertion.
It's important to point out that the company has aggressively challenged any medical examiner who determines that a Taser killed someone or contributed to their death, in many cases suing to have the official cause of death changed. Therefore I am skeptical of the 153 figure.
I see this all the time. There is a Mercedes dealer in New Jersey that wants me to trade in my 2014 S-class. (I have never been to NJ and I don't own a Mercedes.) I get regular notices about a short-term loan taken out by someone in Tennessee, who has apparently never made a payment. And I get multiple messages every day from ADT Canada, letting me know when someone in Toronto arms or disarms his home security system.
The only company that handled this well was Netflix. I got an E-mail thanking me for signing up, followed almost immediately by a message from their tech support regarding problems signing in. That included a number which was answered in less than a minute when I called, and the rep apologized (with a smile) and fixed it immediately.
At the risk of sounding callous, if it costs $50K per dose to make a drug, it might be reasonable to state that no feasible treatment exists at this time. We perform cost/benefit analyses all the time, but not when it comes to health care. This is a difficult subject, but is seems to be a conversation we are not even capable of having at this time.
The things you mention influence the duration of sentencing after a conviction, which is very different from what I understood this program to do; i.e., to determine whether (or how long) to detain suspects who have not yet been convicted of anything. I understand that the police have (and must have) some discretion in how they handle different individuals, but this still scares me.
I thought the idea was to detain people if they had already committed a crime, so I'm a little disturbed at the idea of holding them because you think they are likely to offend in future. If we are going to change the way we do these things, we will need to revamp our entire legal system (which I think would be a terrible mistake).
I can't speak directly to what you experienced, but as a rule it does not work that way. If you have been convicted of a felony in any other country, and it is also a felony in Canada, you are not eligible for admission for 10 years. You can often get around this by making arrangements with your local Canadian consulate before starting your trip. The exclusion only applies to the individual with the criminal record - but his traveling companions would be jerks to abandon him at the border, which is generally why an entire party will turn around.
I don't disagree with your sentiment, but identifying yourself does not necessarily require documents. The Supreme Court ruled on this back in the 80s. However, since then, some states have passed laws requiring documentary proof of identity. Wikipedia has a good article laying out the particulars for your location. Definitely something everyone should know.
Incorrect. It varies from state to state, but in most places, you are required to identify yourself, but not necessarily to show identification documents. (If you are driving, of course, you are required to produce your drivers license.)
There was a study, published in 2014 by the University of Utah, which found a negative correlation. Companies with highly paid execs did significantly worse than companies run by mere mortals. You should Google it; the details are interesting.
Rich people tend to be in debt, because they use debt to increase their wealth. They don't, as a rule, go into debt to accumulate stuff.
This is, in fact, the fundamental difference between rich and poor.
To discourage such shenanigans, many states require that creditors allow a certain minimum amount of time - typically 14 days - between actual receipt of your bill and the payment due date. You might want to look into this.
I am an avid reader who just received my first Kindle as a Christmas present. A couple of books later, I have noticed that my reading speed on the Kindle is a fraction of what it is for the same text on paper. I decided to re-read a novel before starting its sequel, and after a few chapters switched back to my old paperback. I found myself reading about 3 times faster on the physical book.
This is at least partly because there is so little text per page on the Kindle, a function of both display size and line- and letter-spacing. But beyond that there is also an issue with readability or legibility. The font used on these devices is remarkably ugly.
These are not permanent, unchangeable characteristics of E-readers, so I hope things will get better as the products evolve.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a good time to mention Jeff Vogel at Spiderweb Software and his old school role-playing games.
Some of us idiots think that this whole current process, whereby prosecutors (who are answerable to no-one) control outcomes through plea deals, is a terrible perversion of justice because it completely short circuits due process.
Hawk, if you want to post under your username, you have to create a Slashdot account. Otherwise, you can only post as an anonymous coward.
I figured it had to be a reference to something, but I didn't know what. FWIW, this is one of the very few times in my life that I have been considered insufficiently nerdy.
Why would anyone choose to watch a show called 'Halt and Catch Fire' without additional information? The name isn't catchy or poetic, and doesn't convey any information concerning what the show is about.
I'm not trying to be unpleasant, but I did literally read more than a dozen articles, each one talking about a different event. I overstated my case when I said 'any medical examiner,' but my original statement was based on personal experience of local events (one in San Francisco and one in southern Utah, many years ago) where people died after being tazed, and the things I read while doing research at that time. The medical examiner in the little town privately said that it would be dangerous to his career to implicate Tazer in the death.
How tiresome. Citations are appropriate when making outlandish or extraordinary claims, but it is perfectly reasonable to know things without having recently read about them online. In this case, a simple Google search for 'Taser challenges medical examiners' turns up - in addition to the Reuters article mentioned in the original post - dozens of cases, from Canada, the UK, and the US, that support my assertion.
It's important to point out that the company has aggressively challenged any medical examiner who determines that a Taser killed someone or contributed to their death, in many cases suing to have the official cause of death changed. Therefore I am skeptical of the 153 figure.
I see this all the time. There is a Mercedes dealer in New Jersey that wants me to trade in my 2014 S-class. (I have never been to NJ and I don't own a Mercedes.) I get regular notices about a short-term loan taken out by someone in Tennessee, who has apparently never made a payment. And I get multiple messages every day from ADT Canada, letting me know when someone in Toronto arms or disarms his home security system.
The only company that handled this well was Netflix. I got an E-mail thanking me for signing up, followed almost immediately by a message from their tech support regarding problems signing in. That included a number which was answered in less than a minute when I called, and the rep apologized (with a smile) and fixed it immediately.
At the risk of sounding callous, if it costs $50K per dose to make a drug, it might be reasonable to state that no feasible treatment exists at this time. We perform cost/benefit analyses all the time, but not when it comes to health care. This is a difficult subject, but is seems to be a conversation we are not even capable of having at this time.
The things you mention influence the duration of sentencing after a conviction, which is very different from what I understood this program to do; i.e., to determine whether (or how long) to detain suspects who have not yet been convicted of anything. I understand that the police have (and must have) some discretion in how they handle different individuals, but this still scares me.
I thought the idea was to detain people if they had already committed a crime, so I'm a little disturbed at the idea of holding them because you think they are likely to offend in future. If we are going to change the way we do these things, we will need to revamp our entire legal system (which I think would be a terrible mistake).
I can't speak directly to what you experienced, but as a rule it does not work that way. If you have been convicted of a felony in any other country, and it is also a felony in Canada, you are not eligible for admission for 10 years. You can often get around this by making arrangements with your local Canadian consulate before starting your trip. The exclusion only applies to the individual with the criminal record - but his traveling companions would be jerks to abandon him at the border, which is generally why an entire party will turn around.
I downloaded my first Internet porn from a BBS.
I don't disagree with your sentiment, but identifying yourself does not necessarily require documents. The Supreme Court ruled on this back in the 80s. However, since then, some states have passed laws requiring documentary proof of identity. Wikipedia has a good article laying out the particulars for your location. Definitely something everyone should know.
Incorrect. It varies from state to state, but in most places, you are required to identify yourself, but not necessarily to show identification documents. (If you are driving, of course, you are required to produce your drivers license.)
You express yourself very well.
Sure.
Your example is amusing, because back in the day, when Slashdot was 'a hangout for geeks,' Facebook wasn't even a thing.
There was a study, published in 2014 by the University of Utah, which found a negative correlation. Companies with highly paid execs did significantly worse than companies run by mere mortals. You should Google it; the details are interesting.
Rich people tend to be in debt, because they use debt to increase their wealth. They don't, as a rule, go into debt to accumulate stuff. This is, in fact, the fundamental difference between rich and poor.
I don't know whether 'importunity knocking' is original to you, but that phrase made my day.
To discourage such shenanigans, many states require that creditors allow a certain minimum amount of time - typically 14 days - between actual receipt of your bill and the payment due date. You might want to look into this.
I am an avid reader who just received my first Kindle as a Christmas present. A couple of books later, I have noticed that my reading speed on the Kindle is a fraction of what it is for the same text on paper. I decided to re-read a novel before starting its sequel, and after a few chapters switched back to my old paperback. I found myself reading about 3 times faster on the physical book.
This is at least partly because there is so little text per page on the Kindle, a function of both display size and line- and letter-spacing. But beyond that there is also an issue with readability or legibility. The font used on these devices is remarkably ugly.
These are not permanent, unchangeable characteristics of E-readers, so I hope things will get better as the products evolve.
But they do sell millions. How many old people live in Europe, Japan, and the USA?