Is this guy from the KGB? Or how they call it now... FSB?
Yes, I always wondered how a former top KGB man could be elected President of the Russian Federation. It would be as dumb as, say, a former head of the CIA being elected President of the U.S.
Carter got the blame because there wasn't one oil crisis in the 1970s, there were two. The first was the 1973 Arab embargo, but the embargo ended in 1974, and the effects started to slowly go away, including the end of rationing in 1976 (during the Ford administration). Carter got the blame for the massive spike in prices that followed the Iranian mess in 1978, with prices peaking in 1980.
But that's just it. When people talk about gas rationing and stuff like that, they talk about Carter. Nixon and Ford are never brought up when the energy crisis is discussed.
How does it cost more than 2 million dollars to execute someone?
The extra cost comes from appeals and other things that go with prosecuting a capital murder crime. You have to factor in all the legal costs and what not.
A pretty good write-up can be found here: (this is not my work, BTW).
But over and above cost, there is still the issue of how permanent a sanction the death penalty is. In most capital murder cases, there is a decent chance that the court got it wrong and they are sending an innocent man to his death. I guess that's why hardly anyone (at least to my knowledge) kicked up a fuss about executing Timothy McVeigh. The murders were truly horrific and he was definitely guilty, to the point of being proud to admit it.
Yeah. Because if someone's been rotting in jail (at taxpayer expense) for 25 years, and they are found found innocent due to new forensics, we can give them their 25 years back.
It beats being dead.
And the money we spend to keep them in jail, and to feed them, etc, all magically re-appears.
It costs more in taxpayer money to execute someone (with all the legal costs, appeals, etc.) than it costs to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.
Remember when oil production "peaked" in the 1970's? How many times will we have "peak oil"?
No, I don't actually. There was an energy crisis starting in the Nixon Administration (I always wondered why Carter is blamed for that), but there was no oil "peak". The energy crisis was based on the Arabian Oil Embargo, which artificially created conditions similar to what is projected for peak oil production. When peak oil production is discussed today, they are talking about all the oil that is produced everywhere.
Contrast this with the TV promo I saw a few years back, on Detroit's Fox affiliate, which announced that the Detroit Police Department was hiring, and a high school diploma was (I kid you not) a plus.
Bullshit. The Democrats are an extremely conservative party. That they look liberal next to the GOP tells you how far to the right they have gone.
I'm glad somebody here gets that. The Republicans are a far-right party and the Democrats are merely a right or center-right party. Dennis Kucinich (for example) is seen in America as being an ultra-left-wing fringe nut, but in the international scheme of things, he's actually fairly moderate.
Falafels? Hell, the FBI should be monitoring people who eat at Taco Bell. A man who has eaten at Taco Bell is a weapon of mass destruction waiting to explode!
But have we really sunk this low?... are we really heading for the 1984 Big Brother world, where technology is used against anyone who may even have any view, which could oppose the current people in power?
We've been heading towards that sort of world since at least 1914, when sophisticated propaganda began to be worked out. Orwell, Huxley and the rest were writing based on what was already happening and were simply extrapolating based on what they understood about history, technology and human behavior.
I would even settle for a "politicial ostracism": we don't kick them out of the ciy or coutnry, but they're banned from running for office, or accepting any government position, or doing any lobbying or campaining for anyone else. Out of the process for ten years. Go home and get an honest job.
Actually, that would be a great alternative to term limits. You serve one term as representative, senator or president. Then, you can't serve for anything else, or hold any kind of government job or office, for the same term as you served (e.g., a representative would have to be politically ostracized for two years). After that, you can come back and run for whatever you want again. It would certainly eliminate the advantage inherent in incumbency.
I must say, Mr. Swiss, that's a jolly good idea you've got there:-p
Otherwise we have a situation like in China, where some 95 or higher percent of cases end in favor of the plaintiff or prosecution, especially in criminal cases. The attitude seems to be that if the authorities went to the trouble of bringing the case, the defendant must be guilty. Of something.
Quite true according to what some of my friends from mainland China have told me. Often enough, an accused person will not even be able to really defend themselves. The attitude is usually "Shut up! You're a criminal! You have no right to say anything!"
For, instance if 12% of the population voted for Stephen Colbert, 44% voted for Pat Buchannan and 44% percent voted for Hillary Clinton, and Colbert sent a bunch of Democratic insiders to the Electoral College and they, along with the rest of the democrats, voted for Bill Clinton. Then since the Constitution would override any law passed by Congress Bill CLinton would become the Elected President even though Congress passed a law that disallows a person from serving a third term as President. Which might lead to a Constitutional crisis and certainly a Supreme Court case.
Actually, George W. Bush would be granted a third term due to a 6-3 split decision in the Supreme Court. Oh, and the Supreme Court decision would be made non-precedential.
ironically, some people today still cite 19th century texts claiming that magnetism "cannot be explained by science"...
I'm genuinely curious. Who believes that magnetism cannot be adequately explained by science. If you have a link to a site, or could mention a book, I could use a good laugh.
As hundreds of thousands of their countrymen/women were killed and dumped in mass graves to keep it that way. What is WRONG with you?
And hundreds of thousands of civilians have been blown apart by the American military and its indiscriminate use of munitions. Women have been raped by US soldiers. Not to mention all the torture that has been inflicted on Iraqis in various US-run prisons. Like the GP said, yes Saddam was a viscious, evil bastard who deserved to be hanged thousands of time over, but what we have given the Iraqis is even worse. Do you think a civilian being cut to pieces by one of our daisy cutter bombs thinks before he dies "I'm so glad I'm being killed by American munitions, and not one of Saddam's industrial shredders. God bless America!"?
This ought to be good. What religious beliefs did Einstein have?
"God does not play dice with the universe" for one. You are right in that Einstein had no formal religion. But, he was not an anti-religious or even entirely unreligious person. For example, he did have a problem with "professional atheists", but also had a problem with the Big Guy With Gray Beard In The Clouds kind of religion. You can't really put a label on Einsteins ideas with respect to religion.
It's an interesting strategy outlined in the article - that they're less worried about making money quickly and more worried about making robotics a sustainable sector of the economy means they'll either crash and burn early, or their efforts will single-handedly help to define a new generation of technology. Quite the fun dichotomy.:)
I think the key is that they are planning on licensing the patents from the technology. At least, that's what I got from the article.
So:
1. Develop Robot Tech
2. Patent Robot Tech
3. License Robot Tech to those with the capacity to mass produce
4. Profit! (no ??? needed this time)
So, if someone hijacks your car, the government should just let you eat the loss, because you royally screwed up and got out of the car at gunpoint?
That's a good point. If someone robs you of your car, the government is not going to reimburse you for it. They will try to catch the criminal and you can bring a civil suit against the criminal, but that is it. If the criminal robs you of your car and then drives it off a cliff and kills himself, you are out of luck. You get something between diddly and squat.
Which raises the question: what do they have to fear if GMO are safe?
Well, the point is that GMO food is so new that there is no way to really know if it is safe, or what the long term effects might be. So, corporations like Monsanto are basically trying to force us all to participate in medical experimentation whether we like it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
A pretty good write-up can be found here: (this is not my work, BTW).
But over and above cost, there is still the issue of how permanent a sanction the death penalty is. In most capital murder cases, there is a decent chance that the court got it wrong and they are sending an innocent man to his death. I guess that's why hardly anyone (at least to my knowledge) kicked up a fuss about executing Timothy McVeigh. The murders were truly horrific and he was definitely guilty, to the point of being proud to admit it.
I must say, Mr. Swiss, that's a jolly good idea you've got there
So:
1. Develop Robot Tech
2. Patent Robot Tech
3. License Robot Tech to those with the capacity to mass produce
4. Profit! (no ??? needed this time)