It's the other way around. After 3 months homeless you're about 90% likely to start suffering from symptoms of mental illness. Insecurity tends to desocialize people. Drug use pops up as either a coping mechanism or a consequence of losing employment and access to addictive pharmaceuticals (e.g. I was on Eszopiclone for 12 days; it wasn't working, and I took a day off work while going through horrendous withdrawal that began with a minor myocardial infarction and mostly involved anxiety and a sensation like having sunburn everywhere)--in either case, becoming addiction due to uncontrolled dosage adjusted largely to counter tolerance.
Many shelters also will refuse to board people who can't show a state ID or other documentation, or who don't get in by a curfew. That's a problem here due to public transportation being crap and people often ending up on the other side of town trying to find DHR assistance or a job--the homeless basically have to huddle around the homeless shelter and not do anything if they want to be housed.
In other words no, you have no idea about anything involved in the criminal justice system and have never associated with actual criminals.
Actually, I've met and engaged with plenty of released felons, current heroin addicts, and others with criminal history. I've done volunteer work with OutForJustice, which in Baltimore is headed by Nicole Hanson, who was herself incarcerated for felony crimes for a little while. Rikki Vaughn, a candidate for Senate running against Ben Cardin in Maryland's 2018 primary election, was incarcerated for felony crimes when he was 18 and went on to be homeless for a time. These are real people who have been part of the prison population, not just an interloper like myself who's peeked in to see what's going on in there.
I've also dealt with both defense lawyers and prosecutors, as well as district judges, county clerks, and others who see the process of moving people from arrest to sentencing. They've developed an understanding of systemic problems and behavioral motivations due to their own stations.
Your assertion seems like only a convicted felon who has lived through brutal treatment, been a prosecutor, been a clerk, been a judge, been a prison guard, and formed your own conclusions could possibly understand what's happening. How many people in the world fit that profile?
You have read articles and talked to people who, after years of pushing the idea that criminals had low self-esteem, were shocked to find out criminals have at least average and usually extremely high self-esteem when criminals were actually examined.
I've read scientific papers and spoken with subject matter experts who have used metrics and numerical analysis to figure out what's actually happening in the world around them, as well as people in the field who have seen the results of various systems and can volunteer anecdotal observations.
You have surrounded yourself with yes men and people who share your views and are claiming to be fully informed.
I appear to be better-informed than you. What evidence have you got to support your conclusions?
who determines what is necessary for the security of the public?
Ultimately, SCOTUS. We actually built our Nation to sort of work things out without having rigid, clear rules.
Failure to answer shows you have not thought this through.
Actually, I live in a state where the Courts ruled that alternatives to cash bail are constitutionally-required wherever possible and reasonable. Predictably, my state has had some issues with the recent development: the number of defendants who don't show up to trial increased from 10% to 14%.
Washington DC has been doing this for a lot longer--over 45 years, in fact. Their Pretrial Services Agency uses a risk-based model determining the public safety risk and the flight risk of the defendant. They actually release 80% of all defendants in DC under their own recognizance, and only 10% fail to appear for any scheduled court date, while only 9% are arrested between pretrial release and their court date. Cash bail is still legal--you'll notice I used an "except where" clause--and imposed almost never.
In other words: DC is a hell of a lot better at this than Maryland.
The purpose of prisons is to confine as punishment.
The purpose of prisons is to reduce crime. To that purpose, rehabilitation is the goal, not punishment.
You are saying let's take away the confinement part of the punishment.
Open prisons don't eliminate confinement; they establish trust. Inmates whom we believe are able to manage themselves are placed in an environment in which they have to exercise that capacity and thus essentially reinforce a behavior of not violating the trust society places with them. They're not allowed to leave.
This of course requires careful selection of inmates who we can reasonably expect to not attempt escape; and the results have been shown with the Bollate prison, among others They also seem to be more likely to get jobs after prison, but the research does not rule out other factors contributing to that particular outcome.
Spending one more year at the rehabilitating prison (and one less year at an ordinary one) reduces recidivism by between 10 and 15 percentage points (from a mean recidivism of about 40 percent). For the group of displaced inmates, which is shown to be negatively selected, the effects of rehabilitation efforts on recidivism are larger.
While we find evidence that over time Bollate inmates become more likely to work outside the prison, more than a single mechanism seem to underly these effects.
You seem to be quite an idiot.
Perhaps your world-view is deficient and excludes particular information of which I am aware.
Do you have an experience in criminal justice and with criminals? Do you have any qualifications in criminal justice? Do you have any qualifications at all?
I have a tendency to rely on subject matter experts--a habit reinforced by my study in project management--and have interviewed several, including prison guards with multiple degrees in social services. I've also examined current research from all over the world.
Persons whom I've interviewed and who have confirmed the things I've suggested here include the Director of Corrections of North Dakota, who is a member of several international programs which hold conferences, exchange metrics, and perform scientific analysis of competing factors and their outcomes in corrections systems (pretrial, parole, prison, and post-incarceration); social workers who have worked closely with the prison population in post-release services and within jails and prisons; and prison guards, including those with degrees in both social work and criminal justice.
One prison guard I spoke with concurred with my appr
I've actually talked with prison guards, and they would very much like to see these sorts of changes. You're right about actual implementation, though: we need to do it right.
I've frequently pointed out violations of the Nelson Mandela Rules in our prisons and in general--including that the Perp Walk is a violation of Rule 73--so no, it's not technically what we have right now. It's bigger than just implementing the rules, and we need a powerful justice reinvestment approach overall.
North Dakota's prisons had solitary confinement counts in the triple digits in 2016. Today, the entire state has three people in solitary, maybe; they don't stay there very long anyway. They've got folks who will punch you in the face for looking at them, except those folks are now trying to control themselves and have been gushing at counselors because they want to fit in and everybody else is happy and friendly.
There are some of these out in California and scattered around the country elsewhere, in a few cities; North Dakota is the big one: the whole state is on board. Their crime numbers doubled two years in a row and they decided they didn't want the state to turn into one giant Baltimore City by 2020.
Baltimore, MD: 7,600 population per square mile. Bismarck, ND: 2,650 per square mile. Carroll County, MD: 373 per square mile.
North Dakota's JRA went into effect in April, 2017. We won't have decent metrics until 2020; I've had to pry information out of their DRC by the usual method of finding contacts with high degrees of interest in their jobs and asking them to talk about themselves.
Other nations have done the same, although the usual response we hear from Americans is that their criminals are "different" and "don't have the same instinct" or some such nonsense. When North Dakota's metrics start showing change, people will start telling folks that North Dakota is a "different sort of place than Detroit or Baltimore", and that "those sort of criminals just don't exist in a rural state like that", never mind that DRC has locked up 366 violent non-sexual offenders, 98 sexual offenders, and 738 drug and alcohol offenders out of a total 1,614 new inmates admitted (Maryland admitted 11,000 new inmates in 2013 and has not since published statistics). In North Dakota, 29% of inmates admitted in 2017 were violent and sexual offenders, and 48% are drug and alcohol offenders; these aren't disorderly bumpkins who got sent to jail for a week.
Other statistics: North Dakota had 7,204 people in community supervision (parole, probation, etc.) in 2017, and 1,723 in prisons. Maryland in 2013 had 61,882 in community supervision.
These people come out of prison eventually; most folks seem fairly keen on not having them repeat the same sorts of heinous crimes that got them there in the first place. In Maryland, we have a huge population in both prison and community supervision; it costs a lot of money, and represents a volatile criminal element which just comes back to commit more crimes. We can't really lose out by changing our approach to rehabilitate instead of punish, which makes the argument a lot easier when people refuse to believe the evidence.
It all sounds ideal....until you actually have to deal with the type of people you actually have to deal with in prison.
In practice, this is what happens. You treat people like animals and they become animals; you treat them like decent people and they become decent people.
We've been changing the way prisons operate around the United States and the results are that magic shit that happen in Norway suddenly happens here.
I have proposed a Constitutional Amendment including the below:
The purpose of law being to establish Justice and insure domestic Tranquility, the execution of law against an offense shall be to redress and rehabilitate.
To this purpose, and to the purpose of a fair and speedy trial, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except as necessary for the security of the public, and any such action shall to the greatest extent achievable respect the dignity of the person as human beings and ensure their individual needs are met and rights protected; and no bail shall be required except where other means are insufficient to the same purpose; and civil damages shall not be imposed in excess of those necessary to redress.
I'm also running for Congress.
Many of our local politicians and the people with whom I speak on the streets concur with the full implementation of the Nelson Mandela Rules and other reforms. It's actually surprising how strong many of my proposals are: collective risk sharing, strong immigration programs automatically extending expired visas where there is no compelling reason to revoke, a minimum wage policy that rises faster than inflation (even the small businesses like this), and a corporate income tax policy based on net operating profits all seem to have pretty decent buy-in. Conservatives, Republicans, Progressives, business owners, the unions, I've gotten decent response rates among all of these types.
Reforming our prisons will take a little public education. People are not so hot on having open prisons for certain prisoners; many are quite happy with allowing prisoners who seem to not produce a public safety risk to work real jobs outside prison, so long as they come back to prison at the end of their shifts. Full and heavy use of parole seems to get split results at a brush, but good responses in face-to-face discussions. Everyone seems to think prisoners should be treated with full respect and dignity, cared for as well as possible, and not really punished--except for some personal exceptions that a few folks voice now and then because they dislike a certain type of crime.
More parole, cooperative work programs, and open prisons give people an experience with felons as being just people they may meet on the streets. They're sympathetic to anyone who is trying to be better, and so they accept these things in principle as an individualized consideration, and become more hesitant as you broaden it to a general systemic policy. It's actually fairly easy to get people to push against their own reservations and throw their vote behind reform, because they expect these things to reduce crime in total and that's valuable to them even if they fear that some of those people won't be separated from them at a given point in time.
jail isn't specifically meant to cause anguish, so much as it is meant to teach a lesson in order to reduce recidivism.
Those statements contradict: punishment is anguish.
You want to strike a balance of juuuust miserable enough, basically.
We take their liberty; we do not take their humanity. The prison life must be secure. It must convey freedom and liberty to the greatest extent possible. The individual needs of every inmate must be met.
The better they are treated, the better they come out.
Where there is not a public safety concern, inmates should be given the occasional day pass to visit friends and family outside the prison, and return afterward. Likewise, they should be allowed to hold jobs outside the prison. Whenever possible and with no requirements on time served, they should be transitioned to parole in so far as the public safety risk is assessed to allow such transition. Parole fees must be abolished.
The environment inside prison should resemble the ideal societal environment as much as possible: prisoners must be treated with dignity respective of their value as human beings, and their individual needs must be met. All surfaces within the prison must be scrubbed clean at all times; proper hygiene must be available; and communication with the outside world must be retained.
The solenoid mechanism would tend to return to its lowest energy state when jolted, rather than wedge up due to vibration. It would have to be physically-damaged to fail.
A clutching mechanism only has to close. A gear meshing system is generally fine because they interlock well: when one part turns, it shifts to interlock. Helical and spiral-tooth spur gears tend to slip and connect more-easily than dog gears. In a steering system, you also have slow movement, so little chance of teeth skipping and gear grinding.
Generally, the failure modes which would prevent interlock are also modes which would jam the gears if constantly meshed; although you're certainly adding another mechanical action that could fail.
I would place more concern on the drive-by-wire software failing than on the mechanical system.
If the coupling is some kind of spring-loaded clamp which is disengaged by solenoid force, then it requires constant power to stay disengaged. A power failure would re-engage it. You'd have to wire the entire power flow to your drive-by-wire system in series to ensure catastrophic failure and re-engage the mechanical linkage--which is doable.
I've actually considered the same for microwaves: have a high-power linkage inside the microwave door latch, such that the latch must engage (hot terminal inside the latch, not the door). Because the latch arm rocks, disengagement cuts power both inside the door itself (arm goes downward, pulling a connecting terminal) and inside the microwave body (the hook at the end of the latch arm goes upward when opening, disconnecting from the hot terminal inside).
In this way, you must mechanically alter the microwave oven to have it open while powering the magnetron. It's not a logical switch, but rather a break in the power circuit path.
You mean one that engages the transmission body into a loaded state and may break it if the electronic controls decide to engage the clutch pack anyway?
My manual-transmission car used physical linkages to pull bits and pieces of the transmission around under human-only power, since the force required is so small as to not benefit from any sort of power shifting mumbo jumbo. My electric car, as with a non-electric automatic transmission, uses a computer controller to disengage the clutch from the electric motor when parked.
Automatic transmissions in gasoline and diesel vehicles use a set of clutches managed by computer algorithms to shift automatically. It's not like there's an electronic switch that energizes one clutch and de-energizes another when you pull the shifter into D or P; it just registers an input with a computer.
Actually that's not true. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade simply ruled that the Fourth Amendment makes any call to abort() a private flow control decision between a programmer and its standard library.
By prohibiting punitive damages you've just made gross, negligent, and willful unjust and illegal action on the part of business entities almost universally profitable. Punitive damages are needed or else that one time you got caught will never result in a penalty greater than the profit you made doing something you knew you weren't supposed to do.
Punitive damages are actually illegal in many nations, such as Japan.
Businesses are run by people, who are accountable for their negligent actions. As well, businesses often don't redress; they are fined or sued for a lesser judgment, which is why businesses cause $20 billion in damage and pay $875 million of restitution--a customer loses hundreds of dollars and is compensated $50, from which $35 goes to the lawyer.
Profit isn't the damage you've done; it's often actually less: you might get $50 from someone while providing an unfit product or service, causing $100 in damages--the total redress is $150, and your profit is $50. The only possible way for your profit to be equal to the actual damage is for your actions to be no-harm-no-foul.
I've been of the same opinion, and have been advocating solar over parking lot--massive, wide-open spaces, already paved (no run-off created by solar), positioned for direct delivery of 600VDC high-speed car charging (no transformer and transmission loss for cars under the roof), with large installation to consolidate maintenance and management (avoids the cost of scattered, small installations).
Solar on rooftop can more than double the cost of fixing a roof leak.
It's not about magical utility cost shifting to other ratepayers, but rather about the actual labor cost of small solar installation versus utility-scale installation.
Personally I'm staunchly against the so-called, "Death Penalty," for a number of reasons
I'm working on a Constitutional Amendment:
The purpose of law being to establish Justice and insure domestic Tranquility, the execution of law against an offense shall be to redress and rehabilitate.
To this purpose, and to the purpose of a fair and speedy trial, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except as necessary for the security of the public, and any such action shall to the greatest extent achievable respect the dignity of the person as human beings and ensure their individual needs are met and rights protected; and no bail shall be required except where other means are insufficient to the same purpose; and civil damages shall not be imposed in excess of those necessary to redress.
This prohibits punitive action in our justice system, requiring each judgment to impose only so far as is necessary for redress, rehabilitation, and the safety of the public. That might actually make the death penalty unconstitutional.
This is part of a larger "fair government" amendment.
VMs use memory for an entire OS. That includes duplicating the software (shared libraries no longer sharing code), management code (scheduler, etc.), services (all the RAM being used when you bring up to multi-user text console, no X).
I had argued the first step should be a.NET environment for ChromeOS. It would be relatively-simple to integrate: the.NET installation would include the base mounted under each container along with a resolver built into the Mono or.NET Core system. When you run a.NET application, the resolver tells ChromeOS what it needs; if ChromeOS doesn't have it, it grabs it via NPM or whatever appropriate channel, adds it to the central library of stuff, and exposes it into the container.
With this configuration, each.NET application can run isolated in its own cgroup (same mechanism as Docker). Calls to certain system services, such as the default browser, would use a helper application which forwards though a socket:.NET calling a Web URL would be the same as a ChromeOS or Android app calling a Web URL, with the same results; same for any "launch default application for X" call.
ChromeOS could also provide a mount point exposing/Downloads and/Drive, along with a configuration directory separate to that application. In essence, you'd have $HOME with $HOME/Downloads and $HOME/Drive. The.NET environment could provide an appropriate replacement for the usual common file selection dialogues.
On the one hand, this gets you an immediate.NET environment. On the other, this also paves the way for a more-complex native Linux application environment not running a VM. Native Linux applications might require modified Gnome core libraries, dbus, or GTK to function properly; or the modifications may be minimal. Thing is, you have FLTK, GTK+, Qt, Gnome, KDE, and all these other graphics toolkits that don't all use the exact same mechanism to accomplish some tasks. While you can readily stub in a fake Chrome browser installation and a dbus socket, there will be a lot of polish to get native Linux applications to behave as native Linux applications--just running.NET is easier.
It's also notable you can use.NET to run Python and Java, if you're so inclined.
I'm looking at the space after the period on this screen where you typed that. It's not wider than the spaces everywhere else. I've only seen it actually wider maybe once in my life, and I can't recall what application did that.
Madison wrote that many things are definitely in and not in the constitution, and that many other things written therein do not have a definite and obvious meaning. His immediate next statement was an enormous run-on paragraph that basically said "good luck with that".
1) What constitutes necessity for the security of the public and who will determine this? Is if sufficient to confine a person if one of person greatly fears for their life and the public at large is under no additional danger in any way?
We could define this, but the definition will actually change over time as we get better at understanding the risks. We have a parole board which does risk-based analysis of whether a person is liable to re-offend, which changes as they get more experience. The practical outcome of this sort of ambiguity has been that the Supreme Court has clarified things in the Constitution to mean different things--either more-precise or even completely-reversed--as the circumstances of our Nation have changed.
2) What is meant by the greatest extend achievable? If you want to throw an infinite amount of money at the system, there's quite a bit that could be achieved. Realistically, who gets to determine what's achievable with the meager budget that the system does get?
That's a good question. The alternative language is "reasonable", which tends to allow a lot more negligence; and "reasonably achievable", which directly acknowledge that what is "achievable" is dependent on what will not otherwise harm your society. That tends to be an economics consideration we can't possibly define.
Throwing infinite money at a system isn't achievable. Likewise, improving a system to perform more-efficiently achieves more with less economic cost. The raw "achievable" statement puts one hell of a lot of pressure behind moving forward, and doesn't require an exhaustive effort in futility; but it is a huge hammer that will tend to push hard, bordering on unreasonable, and not likely into the ludicrous. The likely outcome is occasional growing pains when it becomes well-known a system can be established which is better, but the transition itself is a taxing but not entirely self-destructive effort.
The alternate wording "reasonably achievable" may be a little more lenient; do we want to be lenient, or do we want to be hard-lined on issues of human rights such as this?
3) What does dignity as human beings mean? Comes across as useless platitudes that mean whatever the reader wants it to mean.
It's actually a well-understood philosophical concept. I also lifted it from other sources.
4) What needs are not currently being met and who gets to determine what a person's needs are? If someone really needs a good lay, is society on the hook for the hooker?
Well, in prisons where I live, women often do not have access to sanitary napkins and instead use a rolled-up sock. They frequently don't have well-established laundry service in prison and may wear the same underwear for several days in this condition. The prison environment isn't always clean, access to natural light and fresh air may be restricted, contact with the outside world may be diminished to near-nothing. People are brought in with opioid addictions and left to sleep on a concrete floor with no bed, vomiting and shitting themselves for three or four days while central booking waits to deal with them--this is actually an enormous violation of Nelson Mandela Rule 30(c), which actually requires treatment as soon as possible for any prisoner who arrives with a risk of drug withdrawal.
It is imperative that every individual prisoner retains a sense of security, independence, and dignity. Their medical and social needs must be met. The particular requirements to rehabilitate an individual will vary, and this variation must b
Punishment is not justice, and justice does not right a wrong. Don't be so eager to swing an axe just because you yourself feel bad about this situation. That is just selfish. Instead, let's figure out the right way to react to the injustice that took place here, barring any prejudice.
I actually proposed a Constitutional Amendment. Working on the language.
The purpose of law being to establish Justice and insure domestic Tranquility, the execution of law against an offense shall be to redress and rehabilitate.
To this purpose, and to the purpose of a fair and speedy trial, none shall be confined against his will except as necessary for the security of the public, and such confinement shall to the greatest extent achievable respect the dignity of the confined as human beings and ensure their individual needs are met and rights protected; and no bail shall be required except where other means are insufficient to the same purpose; and civil damages shall not be imposed in excess of those necessary to redress.
Refresh my memory... the next lane over was clear? Braking is the wrong action at this distance; if you might full-stop, you should instead use a lane toss.
If the purpose is to test, you can't disconnect it before it makes a mistake.
Yes you can. Hitting the brakes when the car doesn't expect it would cause it to evaluate what's going on. Did it identify an obstacle? Did it identify a possible not-obstacle? Did it expect to need to react, but not judge the condition as resolved yet (someone's up the road 250 feet, and you've got plenty of distance at 50 feet, so you wait to see if they move and possibly slow down at 150 feet to prepare--condition is resolving into a single probable outcome as you approach)?
The car can even report that, yes, it saw the obstacle, but intended to brake slightly-later than the driver due to requiring 20 feet to stop and having 90 feet, and being at this point tended to react with twice or 50 feet more than the required stopping distance. Thus you can go back and review the discrepancies, and then notate to the car whether its projected response was inadequate (adapt) or the driver was just more-cautious and the projected response was acceptable (notate, but no change necessary).
Build an artificial test environment first, let it run for virtual giga car-years
Artificial environments can overlearn artificial behaviors. Even people who drive in real cities suddenly can't cope with the task of driving when they move the next state over--it's like they don't know how to drive at all, or maybe everybody else never learned to drive right.
Productive in terms of vendor lock in and maximising corporate profits? Not so much.
There isn't really a difference. If recycling has higher overhead than new sourcing, then it decreases profits over buying new chips. If it has lower overhead, then it increases profits.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the other way around. After 3 months homeless you're about 90% likely to start suffering from symptoms of mental illness. Insecurity tends to desocialize people. Drug use pops up as either a coping mechanism or a consequence of losing employment and access to addictive pharmaceuticals (e.g. I was on Eszopiclone for 12 days; it wasn't working, and I took a day off work while going through horrendous withdrawal that began with a minor myocardial infarction and mostly involved anxiety and a sensation like having sunburn everywhere)--in either case, becoming addiction due to uncontrolled dosage adjusted largely to counter tolerance.
Many shelters also will refuse to board people who can't show a state ID or other documentation, or who don't get in by a curfew. That's a problem here due to public transportation being crap and people often ending up on the other side of town trying to find DHR assistance or a job--the homeless basically have to huddle around the homeless shelter and not do anything if they want to be housed.
In other words no, you have no idea about anything involved in the criminal justice system and have never associated with actual criminals.
Actually, I've met and engaged with plenty of released felons, current heroin addicts, and others with criminal history. I've done volunteer work with OutForJustice, which in Baltimore is headed by Nicole Hanson, who was herself incarcerated for felony crimes for a little while. Rikki Vaughn, a candidate for Senate running against Ben Cardin in Maryland's 2018 primary election, was incarcerated for felony crimes when he was 18 and went on to be homeless for a time. These are real people who have been part of the prison population, not just an interloper like myself who's peeked in to see what's going on in there.
I've also dealt with both defense lawyers and prosecutors, as well as district judges, county clerks, and others who see the process of moving people from arrest to sentencing. They've developed an understanding of systemic problems and behavioral motivations due to their own stations.
Your assertion seems like only a convicted felon who has lived through brutal treatment, been a prosecutor, been a clerk, been a judge, been a prison guard, and formed your own conclusions could possibly understand what's happening. How many people in the world fit that profile?
You have read articles and talked to people who, after years of pushing the idea that criminals had low self-esteem, were shocked to find out criminals have at least average and usually extremely high self-esteem when criminals were actually examined.
I've read scientific papers and spoken with subject matter experts who have used metrics and numerical analysis to figure out what's actually happening in the world around them, as well as people in the field who have seen the results of various systems and can volunteer anecdotal observations.
You have surrounded yourself with yes men and people who share your views and are claiming to be fully informed.
I appear to be better-informed than you. What evidence have you got to support your conclusions?
who determines what is necessary for the security of the public?
Ultimately, SCOTUS. We actually built our Nation to sort of work things out without having rigid, clear rules.
Failure to answer shows you have not thought this through.
Actually, I live in a state where the Courts ruled that alternatives to cash bail are constitutionally-required wherever possible and reasonable. Predictably, my state has had some issues with the recent development: the number of defendants who don't show up to trial increased from 10% to 14%.
Washington DC has been doing this for a lot longer--over 45 years, in fact. Their Pretrial Services Agency uses a risk-based model determining the public safety risk and the flight risk of the defendant. They actually release 80% of all defendants in DC under their own recognizance, and only 10% fail to appear for any scheduled court date, while only 9% are arrested between pretrial release and their court date. Cash bail is still legal--you'll notice I used an "except where" clause--and imposed almost never.
In other words: DC is a hell of a lot better at this than Maryland.
The purpose of prisons is to confine as punishment.
The purpose of prisons is to reduce crime. To that purpose, rehabilitation is the goal, not punishment.
You are saying let's take away the confinement part of the punishment.
Open prisons don't eliminate confinement; they establish trust. Inmates whom we believe are able to manage themselves are placed in an environment in which they have to exercise that capacity and thus essentially reinforce a behavior of not violating the trust society places with them. They're not allowed to leave.
This of course requires careful selection of inmates who we can reasonably expect to not attempt escape; and the results have been shown with the Bollate prison, among others They also seem to be more likely to get jobs after prison, but the research does not rule out other factors contributing to that particular outcome.
Spending one more year at the rehabilitating prison (and one less year at an ordinary one) reduces recidivism by between 10 and 15 percentage points (from a mean recidivism of about 40 percent). For the group of displaced inmates, which is shown to be negatively selected, the effects of rehabilitation efforts on recidivism are larger.
While we find evidence that over time Bollate inmates become more likely to work outside the prison, more than a single mechanism seem to underly these effects.
You seem to be quite an idiot.
Perhaps your world-view is deficient and excludes particular information of which I am aware.
Do you have an experience in criminal justice and with criminals? Do you have any qualifications in criminal justice? Do you have any qualifications at all?
I have a tendency to rely on subject matter experts--a habit reinforced by my study in project management--and have interviewed several, including prison guards with multiple degrees in social services. I've also examined current research from all over the world.
Persons whom I've interviewed and who have confirmed the things I've suggested here include the Director of Corrections of North Dakota, who is a member of several international programs which hold conferences, exchange metrics, and perform scientific analysis of competing factors and their outcomes in corrections systems (pretrial, parole, prison, and post-incarceration); social workers who have worked closely with the prison population in post-release services and within jails and prisons; and prison guards, including those with degrees in both social work and criminal justice.
One prison guard I spoke with concurred with my appr
I've actually talked with prison guards, and they would very much like to see these sorts of changes. You're right about actual implementation, though: we need to do it right.
I've frequently pointed out violations of the Nelson Mandela Rules in our prisons and in general--including that the Perp Walk is a violation of Rule 73--so no, it's not technically what we have right now. It's bigger than just implementing the rules, and we need a powerful justice reinvestment approach overall.
North Dakota's prisons had solitary confinement counts in the triple digits in 2016. Today, the entire state has three people in solitary, maybe; they don't stay there very long anyway. They've got folks who will punch you in the face for looking at them, except those folks are now trying to control themselves and have been gushing at counselors because they want to fit in and everybody else is happy and friendly.
There are some of these out in California and scattered around the country elsewhere, in a few cities; North Dakota is the big one: the whole state is on board. Their crime numbers doubled two years in a row and they decided they didn't want the state to turn into one giant Baltimore City by 2020.
Baltimore, MD: 7,600 population per square mile. Bismarck, ND: 2,650 per square mile. Carroll County, MD: 373 per square mile.
North Dakota's JRA went into effect in April, 2017. We won't have decent metrics until 2020; I've had to pry information out of their DRC by the usual method of finding contacts with high degrees of interest in their jobs and asking them to talk about themselves.
Other nations have done the same, although the usual response we hear from Americans is that their criminals are "different" and "don't have the same instinct" or some such nonsense. When North Dakota's metrics start showing change, people will start telling folks that North Dakota is a "different sort of place than Detroit or Baltimore", and that "those sort of criminals just don't exist in a rural state like that", never mind that DRC has locked up 366 violent non-sexual offenders, 98 sexual offenders, and 738 drug and alcohol offenders out of a total 1,614 new inmates admitted (Maryland admitted 11,000 new inmates in 2013 and has not since published statistics). In North Dakota, 29% of inmates admitted in 2017 were violent and sexual offenders, and 48% are drug and alcohol offenders; these aren't disorderly bumpkins who got sent to jail for a week.
Other statistics: North Dakota had 7,204 people in community supervision (parole, probation, etc.) in 2017, and 1,723 in prisons. Maryland in 2013 had 61,882 in community supervision.
These people come out of prison eventually; most folks seem fairly keen on not having them repeat the same sorts of heinous crimes that got them there in the first place. In Maryland, we have a huge population in both prison and community supervision; it costs a lot of money, and represents a volatile criminal element which just comes back to commit more crimes. We can't really lose out by changing our approach to rehabilitate instead of punish, which makes the argument a lot easier when people refuse to believe the evidence.
It all sounds ideal....until you actually have to deal with the type of people you actually have to deal with in prison.
In practice, this is what happens. You treat people like animals and they become animals; you treat them like decent people and they become decent people.
We've been changing the way prisons operate around the United States and the results are that magic shit that happen in Norway suddenly happens here.
I have proposed a Constitutional Amendment including the below:
The purpose of law being to establish Justice and insure domestic Tranquility, the execution of law against an offense shall be to redress and rehabilitate.
To this purpose, and to the purpose of a fair and speedy trial, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except as necessary for the security of the public, and any such action shall to the greatest extent achievable respect the dignity of the person as human beings and ensure their individual needs are met and rights protected; and no bail shall be required except where other means are insufficient to the same purpose; and civil damages shall not be imposed in excess of those necessary to redress.
I'm also running for Congress.
Many of our local politicians and the people with whom I speak on the streets concur with the full implementation of the Nelson Mandela Rules and other reforms. It's actually surprising how strong many of my proposals are: collective risk sharing, strong immigration programs automatically extending expired visas where there is no compelling reason to revoke, a minimum wage policy that rises faster than inflation (even the small businesses like this), and a corporate income tax policy based on net operating profits all seem to have pretty decent buy-in. Conservatives, Republicans, Progressives, business owners, the unions, I've gotten decent response rates among all of these types.
Reforming our prisons will take a little public education. People are not so hot on having open prisons for certain prisoners; many are quite happy with allowing prisoners who seem to not produce a public safety risk to work real jobs outside prison, so long as they come back to prison at the end of their shifts. Full and heavy use of parole seems to get split results at a brush, but good responses in face-to-face discussions. Everyone seems to think prisoners should be treated with full respect and dignity, cared for as well as possible, and not really punished--except for some personal exceptions that a few folks voice now and then because they dislike a certain type of crime.
More parole, cooperative work programs, and open prisons give people an experience with felons as being just people they may meet on the streets. They're sympathetic to anyone who is trying to be better, and so they accept these things in principle as an individualized consideration, and become more hesitant as you broaden it to a general systemic policy. It's actually fairly easy to get people to push against their own reservations and throw their vote behind reform, because they expect these things to reduce crime in total and that's valuable to them even if they fear that some of those people won't be separated from them at a given point in time.
jail isn't specifically meant to cause anguish, so much as it is meant to teach a lesson in order to reduce recidivism.
Those statements contradict: punishment is anguish.
You want to strike a balance of juuuust miserable enough, basically.
We take their liberty; we do not take their humanity. The prison life must be secure. It must convey freedom and liberty to the greatest extent possible. The individual needs of every inmate must be met.
The better they are treated, the better they come out.
Mostly because these people are Human Beings, and deserve some sense of humanity.
Well, yes.
So for many of the small time criminals in jail, and being that can behave, they should have access to normal human rights.
Well, no. All prisoners must have access to all normal human rights to the greatest extent possible without creating a risk to the safety of others.
Where there is not a public safety concern, inmates should be given the occasional day pass to visit friends and family outside the prison, and return afterward. Likewise, they should be allowed to hold jobs outside the prison. Whenever possible and with no requirements on time served, they should be transitioned to parole in so far as the public safety risk is assessed to allow such transition. Parole fees must be abolished.
The environment inside prison should resemble the ideal societal environment as much as possible: prisoners must be treated with dignity respective of their value as human beings, and their individual needs must be met. All surfaces within the prison must be scrubbed clean at all times; proper hygiene must be available; and communication with the outside world must be retained.
The solenoid mechanism would tend to return to its lowest energy state when jolted, rather than wedge up due to vibration. It would have to be physically-damaged to fail.
A clutching mechanism only has to close. A gear meshing system is generally fine because they interlock well: when one part turns, it shifts to interlock. Helical and spiral-tooth spur gears tend to slip and connect more-easily than dog gears. In a steering system, you also have slow movement, so little chance of teeth skipping and gear grinding.
Generally, the failure modes which would prevent interlock are also modes which would jam the gears if constantly meshed; although you're certainly adding another mechanical action that could fail.
I would place more concern on the drive-by-wire software failing than on the mechanical system.
If the coupling is some kind of spring-loaded clamp which is disengaged by solenoid force, then it requires constant power to stay disengaged. A power failure would re-engage it. You'd have to wire the entire power flow to your drive-by-wire system in series to ensure catastrophic failure and re-engage the mechanical linkage--which is doable.
I've actually considered the same for microwaves: have a high-power linkage inside the microwave door latch, such that the latch must engage (hot terminal inside the latch, not the door). Because the latch arm rocks, disengagement cuts power both inside the door itself (arm goes downward, pulling a connecting terminal) and inside the microwave body (the hook at the end of the latch arm goes upward when opening, disconnecting from the hot terminal inside).
In this way, you must mechanically alter the microwave oven to have it open while powering the magnetron. It's not a logical switch, but rather a break in the power circuit path.
That's how you design dangerous systems.
You mean one that engages the transmission body into a loaded state and may break it if the electronic controls decide to engage the clutch pack anyway?
My manual-transmission car used physical linkages to pull bits and pieces of the transmission around under human-only power, since the force required is so small as to not benefit from any sort of power shifting mumbo jumbo. My electric car, as with a non-electric automatic transmission, uses a computer controller to disengage the clutch from the electric motor when parked.
Automatic transmissions in gasoline and diesel vehicles use a set of clutches managed by computer algorithms to shift automatically. It's not like there's an electronic switch that energizes one clutch and de-energizes another when you pull the shifter into D or P; it just registers an input with a computer.
Actually that's not true. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade simply ruled that the Fourth Amendment makes any call to abort() a private flow control decision between a programmer and its standard library.
By prohibiting punitive damages you've just made gross, negligent, and willful unjust and illegal action on the part of business entities almost universally profitable. Punitive damages are needed or else that one time you got caught will never result in a penalty greater than the profit you made doing something you knew you weren't supposed to do.
Punitive damages are actually illegal in many nations, such as Japan.
Businesses are run by people, who are accountable for their negligent actions. As well, businesses often don't redress; they are fined or sued for a lesser judgment, which is why businesses cause $20 billion in damage and pay $875 million of restitution--a customer loses hundreds of dollars and is compensated $50, from which $35 goes to the lawyer.
Profit isn't the damage you've done; it's often actually less: you might get $50 from someone while providing an unfit product or service, causing $100 in damages--the total redress is $150, and your profit is $50. The only possible way for your profit to be equal to the actual damage is for your actions to be no-harm-no-foul.
I've been of the same opinion, and have been advocating solar over parking lot--massive, wide-open spaces, already paved (no run-off created by solar), positioned for direct delivery of 600VDC high-speed car charging (no transformer and transmission loss for cars under the roof), with large installation to consolidate maintenance and management (avoids the cost of scattered, small installations).
Solar on rooftop can more than double the cost of fixing a roof leak.
It's not about magical utility cost shifting to other ratepayers, but rather about the actual labor cost of small solar installation versus utility-scale installation.
Personally I'm staunchly against the so-called, "Death Penalty," for a number of reasons
I'm working on a Constitutional Amendment:
The purpose of law being to establish Justice and insure domestic Tranquility, the execution of law against an offense shall be to redress and rehabilitate.
To this purpose, and to the purpose of a fair and speedy trial, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except as necessary for the security of the public, and any such action shall to the greatest extent achievable respect the dignity of the person as human beings and ensure their individual needs are met and rights protected; and no bail shall be required except where other means are insufficient to the same purpose; and civil damages shall not be imposed in excess of those necessary to redress.
This prohibits punitive action in our justice system, requiring each judgment to impose only so far as is necessary for redress, rehabilitation, and the safety of the public. That might actually make the death penalty unconstitutional.
This is part of a larger "fair government" amendment.
VMs use memory for an entire OS. That includes duplicating the software (shared libraries no longer sharing code), management code (scheduler, etc.), services (all the RAM being used when you bring up to multi-user text console, no X).
I had argued the first step should be a .NET environment for ChromeOS. It would be relatively-simple to integrate: the .NET installation would include the base mounted under each container along with a resolver built into the Mono or .NET Core system. When you run a .NET application, the resolver tells ChromeOS what it needs; if ChromeOS doesn't have it, it grabs it via NPM or whatever appropriate channel, adds it to the central library of stuff, and exposes it into the container.
With this configuration, each .NET application can run isolated in its own cgroup (same mechanism as Docker). Calls to certain system services, such as the default browser, would use a helper application which forwards though a socket: .NET calling a Web URL would be the same as a ChromeOS or Android app calling a Web URL, with the same results; same for any "launch default application for X" call.
ChromeOS could also provide a mount point exposing /Downloads and /Drive, along with a configuration directory separate to that application. In essence, you'd have $HOME with $HOME/Downloads and $HOME/Drive. The .NET environment could provide an appropriate replacement for the usual common file selection dialogues.
On the one hand, this gets you an immediate .NET environment. On the other, this also paves the way for a more-complex native Linux application environment not running a VM. Native Linux applications might require modified Gnome core libraries, dbus, or GTK to function properly; or the modifications may be minimal. Thing is, you have FLTK, GTK+, Qt, Gnome, KDE, and all these other graphics toolkits that don't all use the exact same mechanism to accomplish some tasks. While you can readily stub in a fake Chrome browser installation and a dbus socket, there will be a lot of polish to get native Linux applications to behave as native Linux applications--just running .NET is easier.
It's also notable you can use .NET to run Python and Java, if you're so inclined.
Fonts just add extra space after all periods
Really?
I'm looking at the space after the period on this screen where you typed that. It's not wider than the spaces everywhere else. I've only seen it actually wider maybe once in my life, and I can't recall what application did that.
riddled with the kind of ambiguity
Madison wrote that many things are definitely in and not in the constitution, and that many other things written therein do not have a definite and obvious meaning. His immediate next statement was an enormous run-on paragraph that basically said "good luck with that".
1) What constitutes necessity for the security of the public and who will determine this? Is if sufficient to confine a person if one of person greatly fears for their life and the public at large is under no additional danger in any way?
We could define this, but the definition will actually change over time as we get better at understanding the risks. We have a parole board which does risk-based analysis of whether a person is liable to re-offend, which changes as they get more experience. The practical outcome of this sort of ambiguity has been that the Supreme Court has clarified things in the Constitution to mean different things--either more-precise or even completely-reversed--as the circumstances of our Nation have changed.
2) What is meant by the greatest extend achievable? If you want to throw an infinite amount of money at the system, there's quite a bit that could be achieved. Realistically, who gets to determine what's achievable with the meager budget that the system does get?
That's a good question. The alternative language is "reasonable", which tends to allow a lot more negligence; and "reasonably achievable", which directly acknowledge that what is "achievable" is dependent on what will not otherwise harm your society. That tends to be an economics consideration we can't possibly define.
Throwing infinite money at a system isn't achievable. Likewise, improving a system to perform more-efficiently achieves more with less economic cost. The raw "achievable" statement puts one hell of a lot of pressure behind moving forward, and doesn't require an exhaustive effort in futility; but it is a huge hammer that will tend to push hard, bordering on unreasonable, and not likely into the ludicrous. The likely outcome is occasional growing pains when it becomes well-known a system can be established which is better, but the transition itself is a taxing but not entirely self-destructive effort.
The alternate wording "reasonably achievable" may be a little more lenient; do we want to be lenient, or do we want to be hard-lined on issues of human rights such as this?
3) What does dignity as human beings mean? Comes across as useless platitudes that mean whatever the reader wants it to mean.
It's actually a well-understood philosophical concept. I also lifted it from other sources.
4) What needs are not currently being met and who gets to determine what a person's needs are? If someone really needs a good lay, is society on the hook for the hooker?
Well, in prisons where I live, women often do not have access to sanitary napkins and instead use a rolled-up sock. They frequently don't have well-established laundry service in prison and may wear the same underwear for several days in this condition. The prison environment isn't always clean, access to natural light and fresh air may be restricted, contact with the outside world may be diminished to near-nothing. People are brought in with opioid addictions and left to sleep on a concrete floor with no bed, vomiting and shitting themselves for three or four days while central booking waits to deal with them--this is actually an enormous violation of Nelson Mandela Rule 30(c), which actually requires treatment as soon as possible for any prisoner who arrives with a risk of drug withdrawal.
It is imperative that every individual prisoner retains a sense of security, independence, and dignity. Their medical and social needs must be met. The particular requirements to rehabilitate an individual will vary, and this variation must b
Punishment is not justice, and justice does not right a wrong. Don't be so eager to swing an axe just because you yourself feel bad about this situation. That is just selfish. Instead, let's figure out the right way to react to the injustice that took place here, barring any prejudice.
I actually proposed a Constitutional Amendment. Working on the language.
The purpose of law being to establish Justice and insure domestic Tranquility, the execution of law against an offense shall be to redress and rehabilitate.
To this purpose, and to the purpose of a fair and speedy trial, none shall be confined against his will except as necessary for the security of the public, and such confinement shall to the greatest extent achievable respect the dignity of the confined as human beings and ensure their individual needs are met and rights protected; and no bail shall be required except where other means are insufficient to the same purpose; and civil damages shall not be imposed in excess of those necessary to redress.
Refresh my memory... the next lane over was clear? Braking is the wrong action at this distance; if you might full-stop, you should instead use a lane toss.
If the purpose is to test, you can't disconnect it before it makes a mistake.
Yes you can. Hitting the brakes when the car doesn't expect it would cause it to evaluate what's going on. Did it identify an obstacle? Did it identify a possible not-obstacle? Did it expect to need to react, but not judge the condition as resolved yet (someone's up the road 250 feet, and you've got plenty of distance at 50 feet, so you wait to see if they move and possibly slow down at 150 feet to prepare--condition is resolving into a single probable outcome as you approach)?
The car can even report that, yes, it saw the obstacle, but intended to brake slightly-later than the driver due to requiring 20 feet to stop and having 90 feet, and being at this point tended to react with twice or 50 feet more than the required stopping distance. Thus you can go back and review the discrepancies, and then notate to the car whether its projected response was inadequate (adapt) or the driver was just more-cautious and the projected response was acceptable (notate, but no change necessary).
Build an artificial test environment first, let it run for virtual giga car-years
Artificial environments can overlearn artificial behaviors. Even people who drive in real cities suddenly can't cope with the task of driving when they move the next state over--it's like they don't know how to drive at all, or maybe everybody else never learned to drive right.
Productive in terms of vendor lock in and maximising corporate profits? Not so much.
There isn't really a difference. If recycling has higher overhead than new sourcing, then it decreases profits over buying new chips. If it has lower overhead, then it increases profits.