Slightly warmer MIGHT be okay, but it's a slippery slope and there's currently no end in sight to the warming. Not good.
No, it's not. First, the earth has been warmer than even the most dire GW predictions. Next, the hockey stick model has been disproved repeatedly. Finally, the earth has seen GW several times before. Every time the earth has seen an ice age, it has ended due to GW. Never has any of the earth's warming cycles ended in a "slippery slope" scenario or caused some sort of runaway warming loop.
The fact is that earth has heated and cooled all on its own for billions of years. For that matter, the earth is always either heating or cooling. Never has climate been a constant. Currently, it's heating. If it were cooling, we would be trying to find a reason why man is causing the earth to cool. We'd probably blame smog, chem trails or some other man made phenomenon and completely disregard the fact that these things happen without our help.
If I wasn't bound by privacy agreements, I could post a picture of a 120 foot long distillation column 15 foot in diameter getting trucked down the interstate. It is far larger than any of these wind turbines and took up 2 lanes of interstate while traveling 40 miles an hour.
The types of things transported by industry in America are heavier and larger than wind turbine blades. This story is ridiculous.
Maybe they should focus stimulus money towards already crumbling roads and bridges? There's no chance roads just started crumbling after a few loads of wind turbines.
I don't think a distillation column is designed to be light as possible and catch wind. That probably makes a huge difference. I've seen these things driving down the road going up and down HW 35 near Austin and they are freaking HUGE! Imagine the difficulty in driving a 150 ft wing 60 mph in high wind. It's not the same thing as hauling distillation equipment.
Does this mean I can patent the method the body uses to convert O2 to C02 and then sue everyone?
I understand the need for patents, but I don't feel discoveries should be patented. If they were to devise a method to test for their discovery, patent that, but not the discovery itself.
Sperm and egg do not have the full 46 set of genes that make up a human being. A fertilized egg, however, does. And that fertilized egg is unique as its DNA matches neither parent.
Oh and your sig is 100% pure bullshit. It should read: "If embryonic stem cell research makes you uncomfortable, you're an unthinking hopelessly ignorant idiot."
Wow! This AC just called the pioneer of embryonic stem cell research a "hopelessly ignorant idiot." WOW! The irony is too thick to cut!
Here's the whole quote:
"If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough"
-- Dr. James Thomson, pioneer of embryonic stem cells
Don't take my word for it. Google the quote.
Let me reiterate that this AC just called Dr. James Thomson, THE pioneer of embryonic stem cell research, "an unthinking hopelessly ignorant idiot."
Thank you for a well thought out, fair minded response. However, there are some points I have issue with:
"self-sustaining" viability outside the womb (currently around 22 weeks gestation) or
A newborn is not "self-sustaining". Hell, I know a few 30-year olds that are not "self-sustaining". What about premature babies that require incubation? They are not "self-sustaining". Are they available for experimentation?
Also, embryos in a petri dish can survive outside the womb about as long as newborn.
significant nervous system complexity (somewhere between 9 to 20 weeks).
9 to 20 weeks is a big range. I'm guessing you are setting it so broad because you don't know. I don't either. Let's just say it's 14 weeks, 3.5 days. What about the baby that is 14 weeks, 2 days? Some babies mature at different rates than others. How do you know which babies have a nervous system? What happens in 20 years if we find out that embryos can feel pain without a nervous system? My point is that too many times, we've thought "things" couldn't feel pain or were labeled as not or less-than human with horrific results. We should have learned by now that man is not perfect enough to decide who deserves basic rights or what is human.
To use your example, experimenting with cells from low-division embryos is not significantly different from experimenting with skin or bone marrow cells.
Right. Under a microscope, they are pretty much the same thing. The difference is the donor and what damage it does to the donor. You mentioned skin and bone marrow. I have both. If I want to donate tissue or take part in a scientific experiment, I am free to do so (and I have). If you can find an embryo that will consent to experimentation, then I guess that's OK too. But even with parental consent, I don't feel that parents have the right to give permission to anyone to kill a child for the purpose of experimentation. And would it even be legal for me to volunteer for an experiment when the end result is certain death? It certainly wouldn't be legal to hold such an experiment.
The other point is that donating a few cells won't kill me. Embryos are destroyed in the process of harvesting cells. If you could harvest stem cells while not killing the embryo, then I wouldn't really have a problem with it, provided you have the parent's permission.
Certainly, if successful embryonic stem cell therapies actually get developed, then there will be an issue with supply vs. demand and access criteria.
So far, all the therapies that have been developed have come from adult derived stem cells. There will be no shortage of those as they can be taken directly from the patient.
And, it's nothing like an organ donor. Even as you mentioned before, it's no big deal giving a cheek swab or skin sample. Giving up a liver is nothing like giving a blood, marrow, or skin sample. Something about organs make them a requirement to life. Skin samples? Not so much.
I guess in some cases Flamebait = uncomfortable truth ?
No, maybe it's because he's wrong. He's trying to paint those that disagree with him as "radicals". I'm against stem cell research because I don't believe in experimenting on humans without their permission. I don't care to guess as to what age a human gets human rights. No one should. Since when does believing in human rights make me some sort of radical?
Does that mean that jacking off is killing babies? Does that make me want to burn witches and torture heretics? Fact is, I don't give a shit what you do as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Abortion harms someone else (the baby). Embryonic stem cells harms someone (again, the baby). If you want to blow your uncle while doing a goat in the privacy of your own home, I don't care, provided your uncle is OK with it (don't really care about the goat for that matter).
The anti-stem cell research, anti-abortion, and anti-sex education positions of conservatives is primarily motivated by sin.
Is there a fallacy of stereotyping? Doesn't matter. Let me give you some advice: If you don't know what you are talking about, shut up. As a conservative, allow me to correct you and alleviate your ignorance.
Some of us conservatives are against embryonic stem cell research because it is killing human life for research purposes. I know, it's only a few cells, so it doesn't count right? So, tell me then, when do human beings earn the right to not be destroyed and experimented on? Is it at birth? Is it after the first trimester? How about voting age? Don't have an answer? Me neither. That's why I'm "conservative" in my answer and simply say, "NO RESEARCH ON HUMANS WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, PERIOD!"
Is the right to not be experimented on so unimportant that you guess when people get this right?
I've never understood the opposition to using existing stem cell lines for research.
Assuming there is a moral problem with destroying embryos, the damage is done. At this point you're pretty much saying "don't eat that cow" when the cow is already dead. Once it's dead you can either eat the cow and have a delicious steak or waste the cow and let it rot.
Same thing with a stem cell. Once the embryo is destroyed you can either waste it...or maybe find ways to cure a zillion diseases. Either way the embryo is still dead.
The problem many have is that in order to extract stem cells from an embryo, you have to coax it into starting to grow and mature. At this point, it no longer becomes a single cell fertilized egg, but a developing embryo, zygote, baby or whatever you want to call it, that you have to destroy to "harvest" stem cells from it.
IMHO, there are way too many other methods to get new stem cell lines that are more useful and do not involve the destruction of any human life at all to even consider extracting new embryonic stem cells. The scientist that discovered the methods for extracting embryonic stem cells agrees with me (read my sig). The only point in harvesting new embryonic stem cell lines is to jab a thumb in the eye of "pro-lifers" and to try to remove any legislation that shows any respect at all for the unborn. "Pro-choicers" have a constant fear that legislation that provides any protection for the unborn is a step toward making abortion illegal.
No, being a "big, fat, meanie" is not illegal. Tormenting underage girls when you are an adult IS illegal.
Well, apparently not, because she wasn't even charged with that.
And what exactly would that even mean? How do you define "tormenting"? Drew's behavior doesn't even meet the standard of "harassment" or "spam", since the communications were engaged in voluntarily on both sides, and both Meier and her parents could have stopped them whenever they chose.
The conversations were under false pretenses. Saying that it doesn't meet the standard for "spam" is rediculous. If you are approached on MySpace, FaceBook or whatever site this happened on by a Nigerian Scammer, do you mean to tell me that they are acting legally?
She acted like a teenage boy with the intent of having a relationship with an underage girl. I see men get arrested weekly on "To Catch a Predator" that do much less than that.
If tormenting children is against the law, then why wasn't she charged with that, instead of a "unauthorized access of a computer system" (breaking a EULA).
IANAL, but I see old men getting arrested several times a week on "To Catch a Predator" who never touched a soul and the jail bait they were supposedly talking to was not even true jailbait, but an undercover person (not even an officer) acting like jailbait. This woman, an adult, had a relationship with a child, a real child, assaulted her causing emotional distress and eventually contributing to the child's death. If I were the lawyer, I would have gone after her for pedophilia and assault on a minor (doesn't have to be physical) at the VERY least. In civil court, I would have gone after everything. I would have owned that bitch's grandkids!
So, like I said, IANAL, but whoever the lawyer was in this case was a friggin moron for not finding better charges to go after. Well, I guess he wasn't that bad since he won the first round. Who knew he'd get a bigger moron of a judge in the appeals court!!??!
I agree that it was the right LEGAL decision, but the punishment she was going to receive would have been much less than the bitch deserved. Even though she was not COMPLETELY responsible for the girl's death, the mere fact that she intentionally messed with the girl's head means she does share some of the blame. Sorry, but any cunt that preys on little girls for the sole purpose of tormenting them deserves years of torture before a slow death.
This is one of the very few cases where vigilantes are called for.
The main issue I would imagine would be for anyone in the northern states who vacation/visit Canada.
Can't be collecting taxes for driving on roads not in this country
They shouldn't be collecting taxes for people driving on private roads either, but they currently do unless your car is solar powered or something. As for Canada, if you buy your fuel in the US and drive in Canada, it is still taxed in the US.
How's this: What about cars coming FROM Canada and driving around in the US? What's to stop you from buying a car in Canada and using it to drive to and from work in the US?
OK. So the problem is the fact that an incompetent government is creating databases that they can neither maintain nor protect. The problem is not the ID's but what the government does with the data they collect to create those ID's. I can see where that could be a problem.
I am not in the UK. I'm a US citizen. We already have huge DB's with all kinds of personal data on them. The social security system, financial records, driving records, criminal records, tax records, census data and so on are all already stored in government databases. This doesn't even begin to touch what is stored in privately held DB's such as medical records, credit card data, credit history including mortgage and auto loans and the list goes on and on. I agree that the protection of this data is critical, but I don't see how it has any affect on whether or not I have to be able to prove who I am (read: carry an ID).
...therefore there are countless examples of these powers being abused and the public having nothing they can do about it.
Here is where the whole argument falls apart. In Austin TX, a female police officer shot and killed a man who had overwhelmed her partner and was beating the crap out of him. She was fired and is facing charges because she was white and the guy pummeling her partner was black. Now, if a police officer can not shoot a man who is attacking another police officer, what makes you think they can somehow use your ID to abuse you? (BTW, in the state of Texas, a citizen is allowed to shoot someone to stop a violent crime. In other words, citizens have powers that this police officer did not.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm against government abuse as much as anyone, but I don't see how an ID automatically equals abuse. Sure, it might make potential abuse easier, but so does a license plate on your car. When they started putting plates on cars, did abuse go up? Of course not. How about your cell phone. You can be tracked by that, you know. Did abuse go up? Nope. So what makes an ID so special that it makes abuse happen when all these others did not?
I have a passport, driving license, bank account, I pay my taxes, I pay my council tax direct to the local government, I'm registered to vote, I have multiple phone lines, I have utilities supplied to my home, I use public transport, so they know where I go, the list goes on. Point is, the government already knows who I am, where I live, where I work - a national ID will give them significant oppressive power over me, and will give me absolutely nothing, except for a £100 bill every few years when I'm forced to renew the card. The national ID card gives me nothing, and the government everything.
First you say that the government already has everything it can get from the ID, then you say that by you having an ID, they will have the "oppressive power" over you. If the government already knows who you are and where you go, it appears to me that they have gained nothing and you have lost nothing. Where does the "oppressive power" come in?
I'm not trying to troll, I'd seriously like to know what the hangup is. You already have a SSN that they can use to track where you work and what credit you get. They can already track your credit and ATM cards. They can see which towers are transmitting you cell phone signals and triangulate your position. Hell, they can even attach a transmitting GPS device to your car LEGALLY and without a warrant, and yet, you are not oppressed now. How will an ID card suddenly make you a victim of oppression?
Straw man. The whole point of a national ID card coupled to its attendant DB means you don't have to set up roadblocks etc., you just need a couple of PNGs sitting in a windowless room somewhere directing much more efficient and targeted "stops".
OK, who are they stopping and why?
Besides, do you really think that a couple of "black-suits" are going to be "sitting in a windowless room somewhere" monitoring the movements of every person in the entire city? Why would they do that? With city and state budgets stretched to the max and the books open for public viewing, do you seriously think that a local gov could get away with that sort of thing without anyone noticing?
Don't be ridiculous - the 9/11 terrorists carried 100% genuine and official Government issued ID. Guess what? Carrying ID didn't help on single bit. Know why? Knowing who someone is and where they are doesn't tell you if they are a terrorist. It doesn't tell you what their intentions are. All it does is give you a huge amount of power over them.
On the morning of September 11, the 9-11 terrorists hadn't done anything wrong. I'm not saying that ID would have stopped 9-11. I'm saying that it's too damn easy to deny who you are when you are wanted. Seriously, how can a warrant be served if the target of the warrants simply says, "I'm not the droids you are looking for."?
If it comes to UK it was mostly about database that should store them and information there. And UK.gov ineptitude when it comes to anything IT.
So is that the problem, the DB? Why not just forbid government tracking without just cause or other "intelligence" activities using government mandated ID's?
I don't have a problem with standardized ID's. I don't have a problem being "forced" to carry one. To me, it makes sense. Under laws that state you don't need to carry or present and ID when asked, Osama Bin Laden could happily walk down the street in any state in America and simply refuse to show ID when asked.
Police: Sir, you are a six foot plus Arab man with a ball sack beard and a you are being followed around by a kidney dialysis machine. You a striking resemblance to the most wanted terrorist in the world. Can I see your ID? Bin Laden: No! Police: OK, can I ask your name? Bin Laden: You can ask. Hell, I'll even tell you. I'm John Smith... no wait, I'm George Boosh. Yeah, George Boosh. Police: So, your not Bin Laden? Bin Laden: Nope. Police: Well, I can't take you in for being a tall Arab. Thank you citizen. Have a good day.
Granted, Osama Bin Laden is not going to be walking down the street in Anytown USA, but the point is still valid. Replace Bin Laden with any wanted criminal and the point doesn't change.
I understand the "papers please" argument, and reject it because we simply do not have the manpower to set up checkpoints and run around asking everyone for "papers, please". Even if we could muster the manpower, the citizens wouldn't stand for it. The very second city police start asking everyone for ID is the second before a local mayor gets recalled for being an asshole. Same goes for any state governor. Granted, it's harder for local community or state to recall a President, but that's what the Freedom of the Press, the ACLU, The House of Representatives and the Court system are for.
I have to ask, do you think the people in N. Korea are happy with their lot in life?
North Korea's regime would've collapsed decades ago, had it not been for China's and USSR's support — exactly the external factors, that the GP is talking about. Today China continues to be the major backer of the dictatorship, supplying them with much needed goods and preventing North Koreans from escaping the oppression...
Good point, but no country lives in a vacuum. There are external influences in every country on earth.
The existence of this kind of thuggish government says a lot about North-Korean culture. It sucks.
Gee! Are you saying that the culture has changed THAT much in two generations? Remember, South Korea comes from the same stock as N. Korea as they were one country a couple of generations ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Slightly warmer MIGHT be okay, but it's a slippery slope and there's currently no end in sight to the warming. Not good.
No, it's not. First, the earth has been warmer than even the most dire GW predictions. Next, the hockey stick model has been disproved repeatedly. Finally, the earth has seen GW several times before. Every time the earth has seen an ice age, it has ended due to GW. Never has any of the earth's warming cycles ended in a "slippery slope" scenario or caused some sort of runaway warming loop.
The fact is that earth has heated and cooled all on its own for billions of years. For that matter, the earth is always either heating or cooling. Never has climate been a constant. Currently, it's heating. If it were cooling, we would be trying to find a reason why man is causing the earth to cool. We'd probably blame smog, chem trails or some other man made phenomenon and completely disregard the fact that these things happen without our help.
Were the energy weapons in Star Wars actually called lasers? That sounds uncharacteristically unimaginative.
They were called "Blasters", although "Light Sabre" can sound an awful lot like Laser if you say it fast enough and they did come in green.
If I wasn't bound by privacy agreements, I could post a picture of a 120 foot long distillation column 15 foot in diameter getting trucked down the interstate. It is far larger than any of these wind turbines and took up 2 lanes of interstate while traveling 40 miles an hour.
The types of things transported by industry in America are heavier and larger than wind turbine blades. This story is ridiculous.
Maybe they should focus stimulus money towards already crumbling roads and bridges? There's no chance roads just started crumbling after a few loads of wind turbines.
I don't think a distillation column is designed to be light as possible and catch wind. That probably makes a huge difference. I've seen these things driving down the road going up and down HW 35 near Austin and they are freaking HUGE! Imagine the difficulty in driving a 150 ft wing 60 mph in high wind. It's not the same thing as hauling distillation equipment.
Does this mean I can patent the method the body uses to convert O2 to C02 and then sue everyone?
I understand the need for patents, but I don't feel discoveries should be patented. If they were to devise a method to test for their discovery, patent that, but not the discovery itself.
Sperm and egg do not have the full 46 set of genes that make up a human being. A fertilized egg, however, does. And that fertilized egg is unique as its DNA matches neither parent.
I guess you shortened it because of the /. sig limit?
It's not like those little words - "at least a little bit" change the meaning much, is it?
Yes, the sig limit forced the shortening.
And no, I don't think the "at least a little bit" changes the meaning. If anything, it drives the point home more. I really didn't want to cut it.
Oh and your sig is 100% pure bullshit. It should read: "If embryonic stem cell research makes you uncomfortable, you're an unthinking hopelessly ignorant idiot."
Wow! This AC just called the pioneer of embryonic stem cell research a "hopelessly ignorant idiot." WOW! The irony is too thick to cut!
Here's the whole quote:
"If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough"
-- Dr. James Thomson, pioneer of embryonic stem cells
Don't take my word for it. Google the quote.
Let me reiterate that this AC just called Dr. James Thomson, THE pioneer of embryonic stem cell research, "an unthinking hopelessly ignorant idiot."
Thank you for a well thought out, fair minded response. However, there are some points I have issue with:
"self-sustaining" viability outside the womb (currently around 22 weeks gestation) or
A newborn is not "self-sustaining". Hell, I know a few 30-year olds that are not "self-sustaining". What about premature babies that require incubation? They are not "self-sustaining". Are they available for experimentation?
Also, embryos in a petri dish can survive outside the womb about as long as newborn.
significant nervous system complexity (somewhere between 9 to 20 weeks).
9 to 20 weeks is a big range. I'm guessing you are setting it so broad because you don't know. I don't either. Let's just say it's 14 weeks, 3.5 days. What about the baby that is 14 weeks, 2 days? Some babies mature at different rates than others. How do you know which babies have a nervous system? What happens in 20 years if we find out that embryos can feel pain without a nervous system? My point is that too many times, we've thought "things" couldn't feel pain or were labeled as not or less-than human with horrific results. We should have learned by now that man is not perfect enough to decide who deserves basic rights or what is human.
To use your example, experimenting with cells from low-division embryos is not significantly different from experimenting with skin or bone marrow cells.
Right. Under a microscope, they are pretty much the same thing. The difference is the donor and what damage it does to the donor. You mentioned skin and bone marrow. I have both. If I want to donate tissue or take part in a scientific experiment, I am free to do so (and I have). If you can find an embryo that will consent to experimentation, then I guess that's OK too. But even with parental consent, I don't feel that parents have the right to give permission to anyone to kill a child for the purpose of experimentation. And would it even be legal for me to volunteer for an experiment when the end result is certain death? It certainly wouldn't be legal to hold such an experiment.
The other point is that donating a few cells won't kill me. Embryos are destroyed in the process of harvesting cells. If you could harvest stem cells while not killing the embryo, then I wouldn't really have a problem with it, provided you have the parent's permission.
Certainly, if successful embryonic stem cell therapies actually get developed, then there will be an issue with supply vs. demand and access criteria.
So far, all the therapies that have been developed have come from adult derived stem cells. There will be no shortage of those as they can be taken directly from the patient.
And, it's nothing like an organ donor. Even as you mentioned before, it's no big deal giving a cheek swab or skin sample. Giving up a liver is nothing like giving a blood, marrow, or skin sample. Something about organs make them a requirement to life. Skin samples? Not so much.
I guess in some cases Flamebait = uncomfortable truth ?
No, maybe it's because he's wrong. He's trying to paint those that disagree with him as "radicals". I'm against stem cell research because I don't believe in experimenting on humans without their permission. I don't care to guess as to what age a human gets human rights. No one should. Since when does believing in human rights make me some sort of radical?
Does that mean that jacking off is killing babies? Does that make me want to burn witches and torture heretics? Fact is, I don't give a shit what you do as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Abortion harms someone else (the baby). Embryonic stem cells harms someone (again, the baby). If you want to blow your uncle while doing a goat in the privacy of your own home, I don't care, provided your uncle is OK with it (don't really care about the goat for that matter).
The anti-stem cell research, anti-abortion, and anti-sex education positions of conservatives is primarily motivated by sin.
Is there a fallacy of stereotyping? Doesn't matter. Let me give you some advice: If you don't know what you are talking about, shut up. As a conservative, allow me to correct you and alleviate your ignorance.
Some of us conservatives are against embryonic stem cell research because it is killing human life for research purposes. I know, it's only a few cells, so it doesn't count right? So, tell me then, when do human beings earn the right to not be destroyed and experimented on? Is it at birth? Is it after the first trimester? How about voting age? Don't have an answer? Me neither. That's why I'm "conservative" in my answer and simply say, "NO RESEARCH ON HUMANS WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, PERIOD!"
Is the right to not be experimented on so unimportant that you guess when people get this right?
I've never understood the opposition to using existing stem cell lines for research.
Assuming there is a moral problem with destroying embryos, the damage is done. At this point you're pretty much saying "don't eat that cow" when the cow is already dead. Once it's dead you can either eat the cow and have a delicious steak or waste the cow and let it rot.
Same thing with a stem cell. Once the embryo is destroyed you can either waste it...or maybe find ways to cure a zillion diseases. Either way the embryo is still dead.
The problem many have is that in order to extract stem cells from an embryo, you have to coax it into starting to grow and mature. At this point, it no longer becomes a single cell fertilized egg, but a developing embryo, zygote, baby or whatever you want to call it, that you have to destroy to "harvest" stem cells from it.
IMHO, there are way too many other methods to get new stem cell lines that are more useful and do not involve the destruction of any human life at all to even consider extracting new embryonic stem cells. The scientist that discovered the methods for extracting embryonic stem cells agrees with me (read my sig). The only point in harvesting new embryonic stem cell lines is to jab a thumb in the eye of "pro-lifers" and to try to remove any legislation that shows any respect at all for the unborn. "Pro-choicers" have a constant fear that legislation that provides any protection for the unborn is a step toward making abortion illegal.
No, being a "big, fat, meanie" is not illegal. Tormenting underage girls when you are an adult IS illegal.
Well, apparently not, because she wasn't even charged with that.
And what exactly would that even mean? How do you define "tormenting"? Drew's behavior doesn't even meet the standard of "harassment" or "spam", since the communications were engaged in voluntarily on both sides, and both Meier and her parents could have stopped them whenever they chose.
The conversations were under false pretenses. Saying that it doesn't meet the standard for "spam" is rediculous. If you are approached on MySpace, FaceBook or whatever site this happened on by a Nigerian Scammer, do you mean to tell me that they are acting legally?
She acted like a teenage boy with the intent of having a relationship with an underage girl. I see men get arrested weekly on "To Catch a Predator" that do much less than that.
If tormenting children is against the law, then why wasn't she charged with that, instead of a "unauthorized access of a computer system" (breaking a EULA).
IANAL, but I see old men getting arrested several times a week on "To Catch a Predator" who never touched a soul and the jail bait they were supposedly talking to was not even true jailbait, but an undercover person (not even an officer) acting like jailbait. This woman, an adult, had a relationship with a child, a real child, assaulted her causing emotional distress and eventually contributing to the child's death. If I were the lawyer, I would have gone after her for pedophilia and assault on a minor (doesn't have to be physical) at the VERY least. In civil court, I would have gone after everything. I would have owned that bitch's grandkids!
So, like I said, IANAL, but whoever the lawyer was in this case was a friggin moron for not finding better charges to go after. Well, I guess he wasn't that bad since he won the first round. Who knew he'd get a bigger moron of a judge in the appeals court!!??!
I would have to disagree. What was done to this child was *not nice* but being a big fat meanie-head isn't illegal.
No, being a "big, fat, meanie" is not illegal. Tormenting underage girls when you are an adult IS illegal.
Not that it would matter if she did this to my little girl. She would be hoping the law was there when I got a hold of her.
I agree that it was the right LEGAL decision, but the punishment she was going to receive would have been much less than the bitch deserved. Even though she was not COMPLETELY responsible for the girl's death, the mere fact that she intentionally messed with the girl's head means she does share some of the blame. Sorry, but any cunt that preys on little girls for the sole purpose of tormenting them deserves years of torture before a slow death.
This is one of the very few cases where vigilantes are called for.
Just my $0.02.
The main issue I would imagine would be for anyone in the northern states who vacation/visit Canada.
Can't be collecting taxes for driving on roads not in this country
They shouldn't be collecting taxes for people driving on private roads either, but they currently do unless your car is solar powered or something. As for Canada, if you buy your fuel in the US and drive in Canada, it is still taxed in the US.
How's this: What about cars coming FROM Canada and driving around in the US? What's to stop you from buying a car in Canada and using it to drive to and from work in the US?
There are so many ways around this!
OK. So the problem is the fact that an incompetent government is creating databases that they can neither maintain nor protect. The problem is not the ID's but what the government does with the data they collect to create those ID's. I can see where that could be a problem.
I am not in the UK. I'm a US citizen. We already have huge DB's with all kinds of personal data on them. The social security system, financial records, driving records, criminal records, tax records, census data and so on are all already stored in government databases. This doesn't even begin to touch what is stored in privately held DB's such as medical records, credit card data, credit history including mortgage and auto loans and the list goes on and on. I agree that the protection of this data is critical, but I don't see how it has any affect on whether or not I have to be able to prove who I am (read: carry an ID).
...therefore there are countless examples of these powers being abused and the public having nothing they can do about it.
Here is where the whole argument falls apart. In Austin TX, a female police officer shot and killed a man who had overwhelmed her partner and was beating the crap out of him. She was fired and is facing charges because she was white and the guy pummeling her partner was black. Now, if a police officer can not shoot a man who is attacking another police officer, what makes you think they can somehow use your ID to abuse you? (BTW, in the state of Texas, a citizen is allowed to shoot someone to stop a violent crime. In other words, citizens have powers that this police officer did not.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm against government abuse as much as anyone, but I don't see how an ID automatically equals abuse. Sure, it might make potential abuse easier, but so does a license plate on your car. When they started putting plates on cars, did abuse go up? Of course not. How about your cell phone. You can be tracked by that, you know. Did abuse go up? Nope. So what makes an ID so special that it makes abuse happen when all these others did not?
I have a passport, driving license, bank account, I pay my taxes, I pay my council tax direct to the local government, I'm registered to vote, I have multiple phone lines, I have utilities supplied to my home, I use public transport, so they know where I go, the list goes on. Point is, the government already knows who I am, where I live, where I work - a national ID will give them significant oppressive power over me, and will give me absolutely nothing, except for a £100 bill every few years when I'm forced to renew the card. The national ID card gives me nothing, and the government everything.
First you say that the government already has everything it can get from the ID, then you say that by you having an ID, they will have the "oppressive power" over you. If the government already knows who you are and where you go, it appears to me that they have gained nothing and you have lost nothing. Where does the "oppressive power" come in?
I'm not trying to troll, I'd seriously like to know what the hangup is. You already have a SSN that they can use to track where you work and what credit you get. They can already track your credit and ATM cards. They can see which towers are transmitting you cell phone signals and triangulate your position. Hell, they can even attach a transmitting GPS device to your car LEGALLY and without a warrant, and yet, you are not oppressed now. How will an ID card suddenly make you a victim of oppression?
Straw man. The whole point of a national ID card coupled to its attendant DB means you don't have to set up roadblocks etc., you just need a couple of PNGs sitting in a windowless room somewhere directing much more efficient and targeted "stops".
OK, who are they stopping and why?
Besides, do you really think that a couple of "black-suits" are going to be "sitting in a windowless room somewhere" monitoring the movements of every person in the entire city? Why would they do that? With city and state budgets stretched to the max and the books open for public viewing, do you seriously think that a local gov could get away with that sort of thing without anyone noticing?
Don't be ridiculous - the 9/11 terrorists carried 100% genuine and official Government issued ID. Guess what? Carrying ID didn't help on single bit. Know why? Knowing who someone is and where they are doesn't tell you if they are a terrorist. It doesn't tell you what their intentions are. All it does is give you a huge amount of power over them.
On the morning of September 11, the 9-11 terrorists hadn't done anything wrong. I'm not saying that ID would have stopped 9-11. I'm saying that it's too damn easy to deny who you are when you are wanted. Seriously, how can a warrant be served if the target of the warrants simply says, "I'm not the droids you are looking for."?
If it comes to UK it was mostly about database that should store them and information there. And UK.gov ineptitude when it comes to anything IT.
So is that the problem, the DB? Why not just forbid government tracking without just cause or other "intelligence" activities using government mandated ID's?
I don't have a problem with standardized ID's. I don't have a problem being "forced" to carry one. To me, it makes sense. Under laws that state you don't need to carry or present and ID when asked, Osama Bin Laden could happily walk down the street in any state in America and simply refuse to show ID when asked.
Police: Sir, you are a six foot plus Arab man with a ball sack beard and a you are being followed around by a kidney dialysis machine. You a striking resemblance to the most wanted terrorist in the world. Can I see your ID?
Bin Laden: No!
Police: OK, can I ask your name?
Bin Laden: You can ask. Hell, I'll even tell you. I'm John Smith... no wait, I'm George Boosh. Yeah, George Boosh.
Police: So, your not Bin Laden?
Bin Laden: Nope.
Police: Well, I can't take you in for being a tall Arab. Thank you citizen. Have a good day.
Granted, Osama Bin Laden is not going to be walking down the street in Anytown USA, but the point is still valid. Replace Bin Laden with any wanted criminal and the point doesn't change.
I understand the "papers please" argument, and reject it because we simply do not have the manpower to set up checkpoints and run around asking everyone for "papers, please". Even if we could muster the manpower, the citizens wouldn't stand for it. The very second city police start asking everyone for ID is the second before a local mayor gets recalled for being an asshole. Same goes for any state governor. Granted, it's harder for local community or state to recall a President, but that's what the Freedom of the Press, the ACLU, The House of Representatives and the Court system are for.
North Korea's regime would've collapsed decades ago, had it not been for China's and USSR's support — exactly the external factors, that the GP is talking about. Today China continues to be the major backer of the dictatorship, supplying them with much needed goods and preventing North Koreans from escaping the oppression...
Good point, but no country lives in a vacuum. There are external influences in every country on earth.
The existence of this kind of thuggish government says a lot about North-Korean culture. It sucks.
Gee! Are you saying that the culture has changed THAT much in two generations? Remember, South Korea comes from the same stock as N. Korea as they were one country a couple of generations ago.
While I agree with a lot of what you have to say, I have to ask, do you think the people in N. Korea are happy with their lot in life?