From my understanding the US prision[sic] population is comprised mainly of drug offenders, not people who were stealing TVs to pay medical bills.
In most industrialized countries, drugs are considered a medical problem and addictions treated by the socialized medical system. Treating drugs as a crime you commit against yourself and then throwing you in prison, nearly guaranteeing you'll have no better options when you get out, is an absurd farce and the shameful idiocy of the US.
Here is what I'd do if I couldn't pay my insane medical bill. Divorce my wife, put all assets in her name, all debts in mine. A year or two later, after racking up more credit to pay off the existing credit, declare bankruptcy.
Most people who declare personal bankruptcy in the US were people who did something along those lines because of debt due to medical problems. The problem is your wife will have to pay a huge chunk of your personal assets in taxes when you give them to her. Also, you'll probably never be able to get health insurance ever again. Also, your creditors might sue you for fraud. Your credit rating will suffer. Also your wife might take all of the money and move in with her new boyfriend.
It violates no laws of physics so far as we know, thus it is likely possible to build. The fact that we have some pretty good ideas already as to how it might be accomplished means it is likely someone will eventually manage it. It is like an assessment of flying in the renaissance. Heavier than air objects can fly (see birds). Invisible substances exist (air). Illusions to make things invisible exist (with preparation). Thus, just as it was likely someone would eventually learn to fly based upon knowledge available in the renaissance it is likely someone will make an invisibility device some day.
Invisibility, like eg. FLT, is most likely physically impossible.
I think you'll have a hard time finding any physicist who claims invisibility is a physical impossibility. The debate is still out on FTL. It is true that faster than light motion in regular space is pretty unlikely, but that does not mean FTL travel is impossible even with our current understanding of physics.
Just because 'impossible' things have become possible in the past...
Impossible things don't happen, merely things that were commonly believed to be impossible. Given current understanding of physics, invisibility is not impossible, just really hard to get working practically.
For some people, the freedom of not having to work for a living is worth doing without an iPod.
True enough, but it is human nature to want to do things. I imagine in such a society there would be a lot of people dedicating themselves to a free or very inexpensive art for, performing social works, and other activities of the sort.
Worse than that though, is that people will quickly disagree with the fact that you've included meat on your list. While you and I can debate this endlessly -for me, steak is a *requirement* of life...
For some people, meat may be the cheapest way to get certain, necessary enzymes. I think it is 20% of the population. What constitutes the necessities is a matter for debate, but for the most part science can determine what these minimum requirements are.
Even in the 'basic clothing' - I just want a $500 suit, not the $5000 Armani. And I justfy it by saying I need it for job interviews.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. A $20 jumpsuit will do for anyone and everyone. If you want something stylish to impress a potential boss or for some other purpose you can buy it yourself. A $500 is not a necessity for anyone to live.
Basic shelter? I want my own pad. Can't share. No communal living.
If you want your own pad or something bigger than whatever society decides is reasonable you can work for it and buy it.
Communication? I need internet --high-speed no less, and a home and cell-phone (for emergencies).
Again, society can determine what the necessary communication is. It might be access to e-mail at a local library terminal or it might be wireless internet and phone service along with a free device to access it. It will probably change over time too.
All I'm getting at is that different people will have different views on what is necessary.
Of course they do, but that does not mean there are not some hard and fast scientific answers for most of it (not neglecting the psych aspect either). For the rest it is a balance of what is a reasonable level of service for a cheap enough price to balance desire and desperation.
what exactly do you hold back from the people who don't want to work for a living, and leech off the rest of us?
Cars, computers, fashionable clothing, better food, big homes, hot tubs, ipods, raw materials, airplane tickets, etc., etc.
And lastly, for many of these people on social assistance, they have the basic choice of working to earn $18k or not working and getting $15k from the mail-man in twelve easy installments.
Ahh, but that is a problem with the implementation. First, that 15K is restricted to just the necessities. It doesn't matter if you skip the housing and bunk with someone else or sleep in the streets, you still can't get an iPod with it in a proper implementation. Second, socialism should provide a base for everyone, not just the less fortunate. It should be much more linear. Working 40 hours a week for a couple thousand dollars is an unreasonable difference. Instead the money you earn should always be in addition to the socialism provided base. Even if you make $100K you should still have the same access to the basic necessities as someone who makes nothing. That way, even losing your job and going completely bankrupt does not mean you are horribly desperate. You just lose additional revenue, not what you have earned to date. Part of this means we have to stop taxing people on things they already own, like property. If you buy it you own it and that is it. No one takes anything away if your income drops. This will necessitate higher inheritance taxes, but I think that is reasonable in this day and age where the top 10% of the wealthy basically inherited 50% of all the wealth in the country without doing a damned thing.
It can be argued that the Ken Lays of the business world are rare psychopaths...
Accountability to the law is different than in an interpersonal relationship between an employer and employee. The psychology is very different. As an interesting note, some studies also imply that the higher up one is in a corporate hierarchy, the more likely a person is to both commit crimes and exhibit antisocial (not psychotic) personality traits.
A social safety net also encourages people to sit back, do nothing and just take take take, at the expense of those of us that work hard.
You work hard eh? Me too. That does not mean most people who make the most money do though. Most of the wealth in this country is controlled by people who simply inherited it and did not work for it at all. It is a myth that hard work is the way to earn money. Statistically, that is just not the case. People who have money to start with make money by doing nothing.
If you provide the basics and nothing more (not money, just the goods/services) then people will work for luxuries and if they don't, fine. It is better they live their entire life consuming only the basics at least they have little motivation to rob me and I live in a better place as a result. People will work to get their designer shoes, iPods, and really good food. If they don't work, very few will commit crimes to get them, since this system provides both moral motivation and greater risk for a smaller reward than the current system.
There are ALOT of new cars in the trailer park not too far from me. Also, there's a huge amount of money being spent by medicare / medicaid so that fat lazy people can get a gastric bypass
Socialism should not provide unnecessary surgeries (unless it is cheaper in the long run than the resulting problems). Socialism should not provide cars. Because that is not the case in current, broken, implementations you think the concept itself does not work?
Also, even with a social safety net, there's still an awful lot of crime (usually in the same areas where a large group of people are receiving benefits).
This is true, when socialism does not provide all the necessities. Take a look at violent crime rates in countries where socialism provides for medical care and drug treatment compared to countries where it does not. Notice any amazingly strong correlations? In the US, for example, more than three quarters of all people driven into poverty and desperate to survive do so as a result of a medical problem they cannot afford to treat. These people and their families make up the majority in US prisons.
So I doubt that your social safety net does anything positive at all.
For whatever reason the strongest correlation to crime is poverty. Socialism mediates poverty and in places where the necessities are provided by socialism, crime rates are very low. The cost to provide food, clothing, and shelter to the entire planet can be easily born by taxing 10% of the wealth of the richest 10% of people on the planet, almost 100% of whom, I might mention, inherited their wealth in the first place. That does not seem unreasonable to me.
The article talks about bending the light around a person or object so that an observer sees the light from behind them, which makes sense. What they DON'T address is that the person or object will still be reflecting light of their own, so unless that light is blocked, you will end up with a blended image of the person and the stuff behind them.
If you bend all light coming at a person around them, none hits them, thus they don't reflect any. This would have to work for all light coming from all angles to make a person invisible. Most people do not radiate any light themselves. I think you've misunderstood the idea.
I still think that in general terms capitalism is the best system...
I think if you look at what countries are doing a regulated capitalism with a healthy dose of socialism for medical care and basic necessities seems to be the best solution anyone has tried on a large scale. In reality, I think this is a bit of a cop out though. Communism is more efficient for small units than capitalism, but breaks down when the units get too large. For example, very few people would argue that capitalism is a good model within a family unit, with each person buying their own housing, food, etc. Pooling money or resources and sharing a single home and grocery bill avoids a lot of unnecessary duplication. I suspect, that we are not at the sweet spot for that avoidance of duplication in most current societies. Communities of a few hundred people that formed communes could share resources, without running into the pitfalls of communism on a large scale. I'd love to see a society try the model of thousands of communities who share resources competing with one another in a capitalist market.
I do think that some massive corporate and political reform are necessary, but I don't agree with removing for-profit corporations. I think that probably all the same ends can be acheived if personal liability (economically, criminally) was re-introduced into corporate ownership
The problem with this is it kills mutual funds and introduces a barrier to small investments that leads to greater income disparity. It works towards killing the middle class. The real problem I have with American corporatism is the disconnect between the investors and those running the corporation, who often makes more money than the owners.
Living in a fairly socialist country myself, I see that there are benefits to social nets, but I also see the abuse. Those that see the safety net as a hammock and have no reason or desire to even attempt to get out and contribute. It's a question of how, in a socialist state, you manage to convince people to contribute to the best of their abilities.
A social safety net prevents desperation, which leads to violence and other negative social trends. To convince people to contribute is easy. Provide only the necessities for society via socialism: food, basic clothing, basic shelter, medical care, communication, sanitation, and education. Beyond that, if anyone wants a luxury, like meat or a car or an iPod they have to work for it. People will want these things and they will work. The two reasons this does not work now are that people rarely own anything since they end up making payments and paying taxes so if they can't maintain the same income they not only don't gain, but lose what they have. Second, not all basic needs are met and not all that is provided is a basic need. Fix that and I think/hope you're most of the way to a better way of life.
Studies have shown the most effective deterrent to theft is moral/ethical. If an employee has a good relationship with the company and their managers then they are unlikely to steal from the company, even if they know they won't be caught. If you treat your employees well, are understanding about their problems, and cultivate your relationship you have little to worry about. Talk to them and learn what their goals are and help them achieve it. Do they want to move up into management? Do they want to go to night school and become a programmer or a public relations person? Help them do it. If your employee has money problems, you should be the first person they come to, confident that you will help them work it out either with financial counseling, a pay raise, saving them money by letting them telecommute, or even loaning them the money they need and repaying it from their wages. You employees should not live in fear of being fired or laid off. If they aren't working out they should know you will talk to them and come up with either a new position for them in the company or help them find work elsewhere, while keeping them on in the mean time. Employees should know they are trusted, for breaking that trust is a deterrent. Employees should have a stake in the company, either stock or a bonus plan so they feel their hard work and good behavior means something.
If all of the above is taken care of, you employees will be a lot less likely to steal or do anything else to put the company out (like quit without notice). There is always the rare anti-social personality disorder, but that is a pretty rare case. If, however, you develop a "strictly business" relationship with your staff that is mercenary and impersonal you may have problems. When people don't care about their employer or dislike their employer and feel that they are in danger of being fired at any time, or their job outsourced, they will respond in kind. If the only reason you pay them is because it makes you more money in the long run, why shouldn't they sell the customer database or source code? If you hire mercenaries and treat them like mercenaries, don't be surprised when they act in their own best monetary interest.
If you decide to treat your employees like you are at war with them and need to be defended against them, you're likely to have more problems than any technical solutions you implement will benefit you. There are products that will build a relational model of your network and log all traffic and access to resources based upon DHCP IDs and the like. Between such a system and a good set of untouchable logs for your access controls you can develop an independent group to monitor your staff. If you really need it though, your company is already pretty doomed as your employees probably don't care anyway and are just doing the minimum necessary to get paid.
If you know any cops who know the laws and just enforce them equally for all people while not breaking the law themselves, well you've truly met some unusual police from everything I've heard. I've never met a cop who doesn't have a story about breaking the law (like by speeding excessively without reason or using their lights to avoid traffic while not in an emergency situation) knowing they were not going to be punished because they are a cop. I've never met a cop who doesn't talk about pulling someone over without probable cause (NORML sticker or looking like a jerk or being black is not probably cause). I've no doubt such people exist, but from the evidence I have seen they are an extreme rarity.
I've mentioned it elsewhere, but I think the concealed pistol permit laws in many states are telling about what kind of people tend to be police officers. In many states no one convicted of domestic violence, spousal abuse, or battery can get a concealed pistol permit, unless they are a police officer. That exception was added because so many police officers have existing permits when the law takes effect and because so many polices officers have been convicted of domestic violence.
Police officers in general tend to gravitate towards the profession because they have issues with control and/or because they want to change society. Because our society is so accepting of breaking the law and the ends justifying the means, this is a recipe for police breaking the law. This, from all my experience, is the norm. Due to the dangers of the job and the type of personality it takes to stay in such a job and because of the natural responses to having power over others, most police officers tend to be more aggressive than the average person. This is my opinion based upon my analysis of cops I know and societal trends.
Not really. It can be done and probably will be done some day. It is just not as simple or work the same way bad sci-fi shows portray it.
and even if it was possible, we'd be blind while we were invisible.
Yes, but this is a solvable problem as well. Bend visible wavelengths of light around, but not infrared and wear infrared goggles. Or bend light around everywhere except a pinhole too small to be visible, but which is used to generate a view outside the cloak like a pinhole camera does. Or transmit an image from a small device outside the cloak. The hard part is redirecting the light properly. Once that is solved, the rest is a lesser problem.
OpenGL, IMHO, has no place on mobile phones... not yet anyway... How on earth can OpenGL grow if it always has to support the lowest common denominator.
I agree. Since Khronos already maintains OpenGL ES for phones, hopefully they will not unify them.
I did a little more looking after submitting this article and while I was not familiar with the Khronos group's work aside from mobile applications, it seems they are also responsible for the COLLADA standard Sony is promoting for open exchange of graphics/models primarily for video games. Perhaps with OpenGL, COLLADA, and some multimedia standards all under the same roof, we'll see development directed to be a better alternative to OpenGL aimed at multiple platforms (Windows, PS3, Mac, and Nintendo?) to offset the threat of MS's DirectX development aimed at Windows and Xbox simultaneously.
Ive done a little game programming and what ive always wondered is why game developers cannt develop their games with OpenGL, OpenAL, and SDL to allow maximum portability.
Big, successful game companies like ID and Blizzard do just that. Other companies used to, before MS bought them (Like Bungie). Because of all the DirectX promotion and training (game developer programs at colleges teach it for some reason), it is easier to find DirectX programmers and they cost less. Thus smaller operations usually go with DirectX to save some upfront money. Then if the game is successful, they pay to port it. If it bombs, they are out less money.
Just to add a point, the non-expanding rounds, supposedly do most of their damage by hitting the target and then tumbling through the body. The high velocity and small diameter is designed to penetrate most body armor and then the length of the bullet, not the diameter causes the size of the wound. For most common military arms, this doesn't actually work very well..223 cal. rounds tend to not tumble very much at all, often going straight through with only a small hole. 7.62 mm rounds tend to tumble shortly after leaving the barrel, somewhat mitigating their abiltiy to penetrate as well as their accuracy.
Zero. They all break the speed limit and occasionally run red lights or make illegal turns.
We can agree then that your statement, "Their view of right and wrong is that breaking the law is wrong and intervening is right" was not correct. They enforce a subset of the laws and take other actions to enforce their own moral beliefs. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that most cops may break the law to punish those they believe are wrong, even if what that person is doing is not against the law.
But seeing as he was an elected official, I see the case as being more about corrupt politicians than bad cops.
In that case he was both an elected official and a "bad cop." This isn't so much about "bad cops" however, as it is about how the average cop behaves and thinks. From what I've seen, in general, cops do not care as much about enforcing the law as they do about other things. This usually means arbitrarily enforcing their own belief system. Most cops I know talk about pulling over people for things like looking like hippies, being black, looking like jerks, etc. I've heard cops say things like, "I don't think they are breaking any laws, but I'm going to search their car anyway." Telling a cop that what they pulled you over for is not a crime and that they are wrong, is exactly the wrong way to approach most cops. It is a lot better to be hauled in to the police station and charged with nothing once the lawyers tell the cops it isn't a crime than it is to antagonize them and have them think up something that is a crime to claim you are guilty of. When you tell them they are wrong, you are threatening their ego, just like telling anyone they are wrong does. There are two basic emotions likely to be triggered by this. One is fear of their own inadequacy. The other is anger at being threatened. A common reaction to fear is anger. Cops are already dealing with some level of fear due to the dangers of their job. Thus, telling a cop he is wrong is likely to evoke the emotion anger. Now a lot of cops have a good handle on their emotions and this will cause nothing. Others, however, may react badly in one way or another. Why should a person take that risk? What is the possible benefit?
Are you sure that at least one such channel, whose viewership overlaps with the intended audience for an independent film or game that I have produced, will offer a reasonable nationwide rate for advertisements for the production?
No, but it is not the government's job to insure that every business need you have is met at a price you want. The government is not censoring movies or video games by not guaranteeing you access to enough advertising with the medium you want at the price you want.
...are they going to offer reasonable ad rates for non-MPAA films?
I've seen ads for independent porn movies on TV and in magazines. What makes you think there would be a problem?
Besides, in the United Kingdom...
And in China there are even more restrictive laws. That is outside the scope of this discussion, which was about the constitutionality of a law in the US. Give it up already.
If you can hold a 45 magnum and fire it, then an ideal body armor can make the hit on the target have no worse an impact than it did on you.
Well, less actually because the energy transfer is nowhere near 100%. The difference, however, is that the recoils is being absorbed by your arms rather than an arbitrary part of your chest. Catching a heavy ball with both hands is a lot different than having it impact your chest. Besides, if you've ever fired a.45, you do react quite a bit to the recoil and it takes a second to recover for another shot.
A variety of companies have rights and you can contract with any of them. Also, you can contract with cable and satellite. Many porn videos do advertise this way. Sorry, I'm not buying your argument.
Magazines: private property rights.
Ummm? So you think the government should pass laws forcing everyone to carry ads of your choosing. How interesting and insane of you.
I don't think this will be a hard sell, depending upon the implementation. It is not all that different from our county's wireless project which has not had problems pulling together funding from local universities, real estate agencies, businesses, and private donors.
Most stores in my hometown that sell DVDs don't carry DVDs without some sort of rating, or they put them in the back with the porn.
So? Most grocery stores in my area don't carry organic vegetables unless they are in a separate section. They are private businesses and free to sell or not sell what they want how they want. The objection is to the government telling them what they can and can't sell.
Without advertising, nobody will know that your film exists.
What law restricts you from advertising a porn film on TV or in magazines or anywhere else?
...it just requires a rating for the film to be exhibited to an audience.
Show me such a law and I'll show you a law that has never been challenged on constitutional grounds. No law that requires this has ever been upheld that I've ever heard about.
...it would appear that you are the one getting your views from movies... The ones with "serious issues with control" generally don't make it past the screening process and generally don't last on the job.
My statements were qualified in that they are based upon the cops I personally have gotten to know. I could list the names of a dozen cops who certainly don't fit with this profile you've created.
Their view of right and wrong is that breaking the law is wrong and intervening is right.
How many cops do you know that don't regularly break the law? No really, I want a number. I don't know any. I completely disagree with this statement. Most cops don't even know what the laws are. They enforce the ones in their officer's handbook if they feel like it and spend plenty of time pulling over people they think are suspicious or who just have bumper stickers they object to.
Is there such a thing as an asshole cop?
We're not talking about some special exception. We're talking about what kinds of people tend to be cops and how you should deal with them. Challenging them on their knowledge of the law is not likely to result in positive results.
I cited a common law in another response to this post, one I think is telling. Many states have adopted concealed carry permits and have used very similar laws to create them. One very common part of these laws says no one who has been convicted of domestic violence, battery, or assault can be issued a concealed pistol permit, unless they are a cop. The reason for this exemption is the high rate of existing permits for cops and the high rate of domestic violence by cops. That speaks to their mentality in my opinion.
If an officer is "harassing" you, say you're doing nothing unlawful, ask them what you're doing that's unlawful.
This is fine, but the previous poster recommended then arguing with them if they cite something that is not illegal. That is the part I strongly disagree with. Welll, that and when they recommended resisting arrest, which is just idiotic.
Advice that gives you a good chance of being beaten or killed or sent to jail for a crime you did not commit is lousy advice.
If you want to change the perpetuation of 'control freaks becoming cops' for society, then do, indeed, seek to understand your rights as a citizen, and their duties as a cop.
There is a distinct difference between knowing your rights, and insisting upon them and more when faced with a violent individual who does not care. If you resist arrest a cop is legally allowed to use force. You are highly unlikely to get anything from the court system when this happens because you resisted arrest.
Going along with 'control freaks becoming cops' as a concept in society, just for a little bit, is just making excuses. Don't make excuses for police crimes.
Understanding the psychology of why a cop commits crimes is in no way excusing that crime. They are fully responsible for it and on the wrong side of the law. That does not mean you should act stupidly and expect it not to happen. When a burglar breaks into my house I understand that they are jumpy and possibly armed and in the wrong. That does not mean I'll walk downstairs and insist they stop robbing me, don't kill me, and go turn themselves in. You have to deal with abusive cops the right way and the smart way.
Slashdot Mirror
From my understanding the US prision[sic] population is comprised mainly of drug offenders, not people who were stealing TVs to pay medical bills.
In most industrialized countries, drugs are considered a medical problem and addictions treated by the socialized medical system. Treating drugs as a crime you commit against yourself and then throwing you in prison, nearly guaranteeing you'll have no better options when you get out, is an absurd farce and the shameful idiocy of the US.
Here is what I'd do if I couldn't pay my insane medical bill. Divorce my wife, put all assets in her name, all debts in mine. A year or two later, after racking up more credit to pay off the existing credit, declare bankruptcy.
Most people who declare personal bankruptcy in the US were people who did something along those lines because of debt due to medical problems. The problem is your wife will have to pay a huge chunk of your personal assets in taxes when you give them to her. Also, you'll probably never be able to get health insurance ever again. Also, your creditors might sue you for fraud. Your credit rating will suffer. Also your wife might take all of the money and move in with her new boyfriend.
Why? How do you know that?
It violates no laws of physics so far as we know, thus it is likely possible to build. The fact that we have some pretty good ideas already as to how it might be accomplished means it is likely someone will eventually manage it. It is like an assessment of flying in the renaissance. Heavier than air objects can fly (see birds). Invisible substances exist (air). Illusions to make things invisible exist (with preparation). Thus, just as it was likely someone would eventually learn to fly based upon knowledge available in the renaissance it is likely someone will make an invisibility device some day.
Invisibility, like eg. FLT, is most likely physically impossible.
I think you'll have a hard time finding any physicist who claims invisibility is a physical impossibility. The debate is still out on FTL. It is true that faster than light motion in regular space is pretty unlikely, but that does not mean FTL travel is impossible even with our current understanding of physics.
Just because 'impossible' things have become possible in the past...
Impossible things don't happen, merely things that were commonly believed to be impossible. Given current understanding of physics, invisibility is not impossible, just really hard to get working practically.
For some people, the freedom of not having to work for a living is worth doing without an iPod.
True enough, but it is human nature to want to do things. I imagine in such a society there would be a lot of people dedicating themselves to a free or very inexpensive art for, performing social works, and other activities of the sort.
Worse than that though, is that people will quickly disagree with the fact that you've included meat on your list. While you and I can debate this endlessly -for me, steak is a *requirement* of life...
For some people, meat may be the cheapest way to get certain, necessary enzymes. I think it is 20% of the population. What constitutes the necessities is a matter for debate, but for the most part science can determine what these minimum requirements are.
Even in the 'basic clothing' - I just want a $500 suit, not the $5000 Armani. And I justfy it by saying I need it for job interviews.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. A $20 jumpsuit will do for anyone and everyone. If you want something stylish to impress a potential boss or for some other purpose you can buy it yourself. A $500 is not a necessity for anyone to live.
Basic shelter? I want my own pad. Can't share. No communal living.
If you want your own pad or something bigger than whatever society decides is reasonable you can work for it and buy it.
Communication? I need internet --high-speed no less, and a home and cell-phone (for emergencies).
Again, society can determine what the necessary communication is. It might be access to e-mail at a local library terminal or it might be wireless internet and phone service along with a free device to access it. It will probably change over time too.
All I'm getting at is that different people will have different views on what is necessary.
Of course they do, but that does not mean there are not some hard and fast scientific answers for most of it (not neglecting the psych aspect either). For the rest it is a balance of what is a reasonable level of service for a cheap enough price to balance desire and desperation.
what exactly do you hold back from the people who don't want to work for a living, and leech off the rest of us?
Cars, computers, fashionable clothing, better food, big homes, hot tubs, ipods, raw materials, airplane tickets, etc., etc.
And lastly, for many of these people on social assistance, they have the basic choice of working to earn $18k or not working and getting $15k from the mail-man in twelve easy installments.
Ahh, but that is a problem with the implementation. First, that 15K is restricted to just the necessities. It doesn't matter if you skip the housing and bunk with someone else or sleep in the streets, you still can't get an iPod with it in a proper implementation. Second, socialism should provide a base for everyone, not just the less fortunate. It should be much more linear. Working 40 hours a week for a couple thousand dollars is an unreasonable difference. Instead the money you earn should always be in addition to the socialism provided base. Even if you make $100K you should still have the same access to the basic necessities as someone who makes nothing. That way, even losing your job and going completely bankrupt does not mean you are horribly desperate. You just lose additional revenue, not what you have earned to date. Part of this means we have to stop taxing people on things they already own, like property. If you buy it you own it and that is it. No one takes anything away if your income drops. This will necessitate higher inheritance taxes, but I think that is reasonable in this day and age where the top 10% of the wealthy basically inherited 50% of all the wealth in the country without doing a damned thing.
It can be argued that the Ken Lays of the business world are rare psychopaths...
Accountability to the law is different than in an interpersonal relationship between an employer and employee. The psychology is very different. As an interesting note, some studies also imply that the higher up one is in a corporate hierarchy, the more likely a person is to both commit crimes and exhibit antisocial (not psychotic) personality traits.
A social safety net also encourages people to sit back, do nothing and just take take take, at the expense of those of us that work hard.
You work hard eh? Me too. That does not mean most people who make the most money do though. Most of the wealth in this country is controlled by people who simply inherited it and did not work for it at all. It is a myth that hard work is the way to earn money. Statistically, that is just not the case. People who have money to start with make money by doing nothing.
If you provide the basics and nothing more (not money, just the goods/services) then people will work for luxuries and if they don't, fine. It is better they live their entire life consuming only the basics at least they have little motivation to rob me and I live in a better place as a result. People will work to get their designer shoes, iPods, and really good food. If they don't work, very few will commit crimes to get them, since this system provides both moral motivation and greater risk for a smaller reward than the current system.
There are ALOT of new cars in the trailer park not too far from me. Also, there's a huge amount of money being spent by medicare / medicaid so that fat lazy people can get a gastric bypass
Socialism should not provide unnecessary surgeries (unless it is cheaper in the long run than the resulting problems). Socialism should not provide cars. Because that is not the case in current, broken, implementations you think the concept itself does not work?
Also, even with a social safety net, there's still an awful lot of crime (usually in the same areas where a large group of people are receiving benefits).
This is true, when socialism does not provide all the necessities. Take a look at violent crime rates in countries where socialism provides for medical care and drug treatment compared to countries where it does not. Notice any amazingly strong correlations? In the US, for example, more than three quarters of all people driven into poverty and desperate to survive do so as a result of a medical problem they cannot afford to treat. These people and their families make up the majority in US prisons.
So I doubt that your social safety net does anything positive at all.
For whatever reason the strongest correlation to crime is poverty. Socialism mediates poverty and in places where the necessities are provided by socialism, crime rates are very low. The cost to provide food, clothing, and shelter to the entire planet can be easily born by taxing 10% of the wealth of the richest 10% of people on the planet, almost 100% of whom, I might mention, inherited their wealth in the first place. That does not seem unreasonable to me.
The article talks about bending the light around a person or object so that an observer sees the light from behind them, which makes sense. What they DON'T address is that the person or object will still be reflecting light of their own, so unless that light is blocked, you will end up with a blended image of the person and the stuff behind them.
If you bend all light coming at a person around them, none hits them, thus they don't reflect any. This would have to work for all light coming from all angles to make a person invisible. Most people do not radiate any light themselves. I think you've misunderstood the idea.
I still think that in general terms capitalism is the best system...
I think if you look at what countries are doing a regulated capitalism with a healthy dose of socialism for medical care and basic necessities seems to be the best solution anyone has tried on a large scale. In reality, I think this is a bit of a cop out though. Communism is more efficient for small units than capitalism, but breaks down when the units get too large. For example, very few people would argue that capitalism is a good model within a family unit, with each person buying their own housing, food, etc. Pooling money or resources and sharing a single home and grocery bill avoids a lot of unnecessary duplication. I suspect, that we are not at the sweet spot for that avoidance of duplication in most current societies. Communities of a few hundred people that formed communes could share resources, without running into the pitfalls of communism on a large scale. I'd love to see a society try the model of thousands of communities who share resources competing with one another in a capitalist market.
I do think that some massive corporate and political reform are necessary, but I don't agree with removing for-profit corporations. I think that probably all the same ends can be acheived if personal liability (economically, criminally) was re-introduced into corporate ownership
The problem with this is it kills mutual funds and introduces a barrier to small investments that leads to greater income disparity. It works towards killing the middle class. The real problem I have with American corporatism is the disconnect between the investors and those running the corporation, who often makes more money than the owners.
Living in a fairly socialist country myself, I see that there are benefits to social nets, but I also see the abuse. Those that see the safety net as a hammock and have no reason or desire to even attempt to get out and contribute. It's a question of how, in a socialist state, you manage to convince people to contribute to the best of their abilities.
A social safety net prevents desperation, which leads to violence and other negative social trends. To convince people to contribute is easy. Provide only the necessities for society via socialism: food, basic clothing, basic shelter, medical care, communication, sanitation, and education. Beyond that, if anyone wants a luxury, like meat or a car or an iPod they have to work for it. People will want these things and they will work. The two reasons this does not work now are that people rarely own anything since they end up making payments and paying taxes so if they can't maintain the same income they not only don't gain, but lose what they have. Second, not all basic needs are met and not all that is provided is a basic need. Fix that and I think/hope you're most of the way to a better way of life.
Studies have shown the most effective deterrent to theft is moral/ethical. If an employee has a good relationship with the company and their managers then they are unlikely to steal from the company, even if they know they won't be caught. If you treat your employees well, are understanding about their problems, and cultivate your relationship you have little to worry about. Talk to them and learn what their goals are and help them achieve it. Do they want to move up into management? Do they want to go to night school and become a programmer or a public relations person? Help them do it. If your employee has money problems, you should be the first person they come to, confident that you will help them work it out either with financial counseling, a pay raise, saving them money by letting them telecommute, or even loaning them the money they need and repaying it from their wages. You employees should not live in fear of being fired or laid off. If they aren't working out they should know you will talk to them and come up with either a new position for them in the company or help them find work elsewhere, while keeping them on in the mean time. Employees should know they are trusted, for breaking that trust is a deterrent. Employees should have a stake in the company, either stock or a bonus plan so they feel their hard work and good behavior means something.
If all of the above is taken care of, you employees will be a lot less likely to steal or do anything else to put the company out (like quit without notice). There is always the rare anti-social personality disorder, but that is a pretty rare case. If, however, you develop a "strictly business" relationship with your staff that is mercenary and impersonal you may have problems. When people don't care about their employer or dislike their employer and feel that they are in danger of being fired at any time, or their job outsourced, they will respond in kind. If the only reason you pay them is because it makes you more money in the long run, why shouldn't they sell the customer database or source code? If you hire mercenaries and treat them like mercenaries, don't be surprised when they act in their own best monetary interest.
If you decide to treat your employees like you are at war with them and need to be defended against them, you're likely to have more problems than any technical solutions you implement will benefit you. There are products that will build a relational model of your network and log all traffic and access to resources based upon DHCP IDs and the like. Between such a system and a good set of untouchable logs for your access controls you can develop an independent group to monitor your staff. If you really need it though, your company is already pretty doomed as your employees probably don't care anyway and are just doing the minimum necessary to get paid.
If you know any cops who know the laws and just enforce them equally for all people while not breaking the law themselves, well you've truly met some unusual police from everything I've heard. I've never met a cop who doesn't have a story about breaking the law (like by speeding excessively without reason or using their lights to avoid traffic while not in an emergency situation) knowing they were not going to be punished because they are a cop. I've never met a cop who doesn't talk about pulling someone over without probable cause (NORML sticker or looking like a jerk or being black is not probably cause). I've no doubt such people exist, but from the evidence I have seen they are an extreme rarity.
I've mentioned it elsewhere, but I think the concealed pistol permit laws in many states are telling about what kind of people tend to be police officers. In many states no one convicted of domestic violence, spousal abuse, or battery can get a concealed pistol permit, unless they are a police officer. That exception was added because so many police officers have existing permits when the law takes effect and because so many polices officers have been convicted of domestic violence.
Police officers in general tend to gravitate towards the profession because they have issues with control and/or because they want to change society. Because our society is so accepting of breaking the law and the ends justifying the means, this is a recipe for police breaking the law. This, from all my experience, is the norm. Due to the dangers of the job and the type of personality it takes to stay in such a job and because of the natural responses to having power over others, most police officers tend to be more aggressive than the average person. This is my opinion based upon my analysis of cops I know and societal trends.
true invisibility is impossible
Not really. It can be done and probably will be done some day. It is just not as simple or work the same way bad sci-fi shows portray it.
and even if it was possible, we'd be blind while we were invisible.
Yes, but this is a solvable problem as well. Bend visible wavelengths of light around, but not infrared and wear infrared goggles. Or bend light around everywhere except a pinhole too small to be visible, but which is used to generate a view outside the cloak like a pinhole camera does. Or transmit an image from a small device outside the cloak. The hard part is redirecting the light properly. Once that is solved, the rest is a lesser problem.
OpenGL, IMHO, has no place on mobile phones... not yet anyway... How on earth can OpenGL grow if it always has to support the lowest common denominator.
I agree. Since Khronos already maintains OpenGL ES for phones, hopefully they will not unify them.
I did a little more looking after submitting this article and while I was not familiar with the Khronos group's work aside from mobile applications, it seems they are also responsible for the COLLADA standard Sony is promoting for open exchange of graphics/models primarily for video games. Perhaps with OpenGL, COLLADA, and some multimedia standards all under the same roof, we'll see development directed to be a better alternative to OpenGL aimed at multiple platforms (Windows, PS3, Mac, and Nintendo?) to offset the threat of MS's DirectX development aimed at Windows and Xbox simultaneously.
Ive done a little game programming and what ive always wondered is why game developers cannt develop their games with OpenGL, OpenAL, and SDL to allow maximum portability.
Big, successful game companies like ID and Blizzard do just that. Other companies used to, before MS bought them (Like Bungie). Because of all the DirectX promotion and training (game developer programs at colleges teach it for some reason), it is easier to find DirectX programmers and they cost less. Thus smaller operations usually go with DirectX to save some upfront money. Then if the game is successful, they pay to port it. If it bombs, they are out less money.
Just to add a point, the non-expanding rounds, supposedly do most of their damage by hitting the target and then tumbling through the body. The high velocity and small diameter is designed to penetrate most body armor and then the length of the bullet, not the diameter causes the size of the wound. For most common military arms, this doesn't actually work very well. .223 cal. rounds tend to not tumble very much at all, often going straight through with only a small hole. 7.62 mm rounds tend to tumble shortly after leaving the barrel, somewhat mitigating their abiltiy to penetrate as well as their accuracy.
Zero. They all break the speed limit and occasionally run red lights or make illegal turns.
We can agree then that your statement, "Their view of right and wrong is that breaking the law is wrong and intervening is right" was not correct. They enforce a subset of the laws and take other actions to enforce their own moral beliefs. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that most cops may break the law to punish those they believe are wrong, even if what that person is doing is not against the law.
But seeing as he was an elected official, I see the case as being more about corrupt politicians than bad cops.
In that case he was both an elected official and a "bad cop." This isn't so much about "bad cops" however, as it is about how the average cop behaves and thinks. From what I've seen, in general, cops do not care as much about enforcing the law as they do about other things. This usually means arbitrarily enforcing their own belief system. Most cops I know talk about pulling over people for things like looking like hippies, being black, looking like jerks, etc. I've heard cops say things like, "I don't think they are breaking any laws, but I'm going to search their car anyway." Telling a cop that what they pulled you over for is not a crime and that they are wrong, is exactly the wrong way to approach most cops. It is a lot better to be hauled in to the police station and charged with nothing once the lawyers tell the cops it isn't a crime than it is to antagonize them and have them think up something that is a crime to claim you are guilty of. When you tell them they are wrong, you are threatening their ego, just like telling anyone they are wrong does. There are two basic emotions likely to be triggered by this. One is fear of their own inadequacy. The other is anger at being threatened. A common reaction to fear is anger. Cops are already dealing with some level of fear due to the dangers of their job. Thus, telling a cop he is wrong is likely to evoke the emotion anger. Now a lot of cops have a good handle on their emotions and this will cause nothing. Others, however, may react badly in one way or another. Why should a person take that risk? What is the possible benefit?
It is very misleading to quote half of two different qualified/compund statements to try to make it look like they agree.
Are you sure that at least one such channel, whose viewership overlaps with the intended audience for an independent film or game that I have produced, will offer a reasonable nationwide rate for advertisements for the production?
No, but it is not the government's job to insure that every business need you have is met at a price you want. The government is not censoring movies or video games by not guaranteeing you access to enough advertising with the medium you want at the price you want.
I've seen ads for independent porn movies on TV and in magazines. What makes you think there would be a problem?
Besides, in the United Kingdom...
And in China there are even more restrictive laws. That is outside the scope of this discussion, which was about the constitutionality of a law in the US. Give it up already.
If you can hold a 45 magnum and fire it, then an ideal body armor can make the hit on the target have no worse an impact than it did on you.
Well, less actually because the energy transfer is nowhere near 100%. The difference, however, is that the recoils is being absorbed by your arms rather than an arbitrary part of your chest. Catching a heavy ball with both hands is a lot different than having it impact your chest. Besides, if you've ever fired a .45, you do react quite a bit to the recoil and it takes a second to recover for another shot.
TV: exclusive rights to spectrum.
A variety of companies have rights and you can contract with any of them. Also, you can contract with cable and satellite. Many porn videos do advertise this way. Sorry, I'm not buying your argument.
Magazines: private property rights.
Ummm? So you think the government should pass laws forcing everyone to carry ads of your choosing. How interesting and insane of you.
What's in it for business?
I don't think this will be a hard sell, depending upon the implementation. It is not all that different from our county's wireless project which has not had problems pulling together funding from local universities, real estate agencies, businesses, and private donors.
Most stores in my hometown that sell DVDs don't carry DVDs without some sort of rating, or they put them in the back with the porn.
So? Most grocery stores in my area don't carry organic vegetables unless they are in a separate section. They are private businesses and free to sell or not sell what they want how they want. The objection is to the government telling them what they can and can't sell.
Without advertising, nobody will know that your film exists.
What law restricts you from advertising a porn film on TV or in magazines or anywhere else?
Show me such a law and I'll show you a law that has never been challenged on constitutional grounds. No law that requires this has ever been upheld that I've ever heard about.
My statements were qualified in that they are based upon the cops I personally have gotten to know. I could list the names of a dozen cops who certainly don't fit with this profile you've created.
Their view of right and wrong is that breaking the law is wrong and intervening is right.
How many cops do you know that don't regularly break the law? No really, I want a number. I don't know any. I completely disagree with this statement. Most cops don't even know what the laws are. They enforce the ones in their officer's handbook if they feel like it and spend plenty of time pulling over people they think are suspicious or who just have bumper stickers they object to.
Is there such a thing as an asshole cop?
We're not talking about some special exception. We're talking about what kinds of people tend to be cops and how you should deal with them. Challenging them on their knowledge of the law is not likely to result in positive results.
I cited a common law in another response to this post, one I think is telling. Many states have adopted concealed carry permits and have used very similar laws to create them. One very common part of these laws says no one who has been convicted of domestic violence, battery, or assault can be issued a concealed pistol permit, unless they are a cop. The reason for this exemption is the high rate of existing permits for cops and the high rate of domestic violence by cops. That speaks to their mentality in my opinion.
If an officer is "harassing" you, say you're doing nothing unlawful, ask them what you're doing that's unlawful.
This is fine, but the previous poster recommended then arguing with them if they cite something that is not illegal. That is the part I strongly disagree with. Welll, that and when they recommended resisting arrest, which is just idiotic.
The broadcast oligopoly tends not to accept advertisements for movies that are not rated.
Which has jack and shit to do with selling movies in the store or making them available to view in theaters.
It is not lousy advice.
Advice that gives you a good chance of being beaten or killed or sent to jail for a crime you did not commit is lousy advice.
If you want to change the perpetuation of 'control freaks becoming cops' for society, then do, indeed, seek to understand your rights as a citizen, and their duties as a cop.
There is a distinct difference between knowing your rights, and insisting upon them and more when faced with a violent individual who does not care. If you resist arrest a cop is legally allowed to use force. You are highly unlikely to get anything from the court system when this happens because you resisted arrest.
Going along with 'control freaks becoming cops' as a concept in society, just for a little bit, is just making excuses. Don't make excuses for police crimes.
Understanding the psychology of why a cop commits crimes is in no way excusing that crime. They are fully responsible for it and on the wrong side of the law. That does not mean you should act stupidly and expect it not to happen. When a burglar breaks into my house I understand that they are jumpy and possibly armed and in the wrong. That does not mean I'll walk downstairs and insist they stop robbing me, don't kill me, and go turn themselves in. You have to deal with abusive cops the right way and the smart way.
Is the current rating system for movies censorship?
No, because it is voluntary, not a law.
Is requiring proof of ID to purchase cigarettes or liquor censorship?
No, it is a hazardous materials law, upheld because science has provided clear evidence that both cause harm to minors.
Voluntary ratings like the movie industry are great. Censorship laws like this are not.