Is there some reason why Kucinich is regularly left out of all Presidential debates and comparisons? Yes. Insufficient funding. They know he doesn't have a snowball's chance, so they don't waste thier time. Same with libertarians. Most of of the media is not really interested in ideas, so they don't judge on that basis.
Just a modest proposal: Every government employee - except for those working on confidential stuff - should have a 24-hour PUBLIC webcam on his desk ( The camera need not point at the desk, just at the person ) , his car, or wherever he/she works. Police / sheriff / prison employees / corrections officers, etc or anyone who may at some time have someone in custody should have two separate cameras in case one malfunctions.
Donate to Ron Paul today. 3.5 hours left. Actually, there are more hours than that left. Due to time zones they are counting several hours either side of Sunday EST. So it will still be tea party day in Hawaii for another 6.5 hours.
Spaceship one was good for getting to the 'edge of space' and back. Being in orbit is a different thing.
As a general rule, it takes 30 times as much energy to get into orbit as it does to just get up there. ( the number varies with altitude, of course, but 30 is a good back-of-the-envelope approximation ). The energy that has to be bled off when coming down is roughly 30-fold. So spaceshipOne is not even close to being able to do it. It requires new materials and/or a new design. Or stick with the high maintainence and unpleasant failure rate of the shuttle.
Or you can stick to the simple way of doing it with rockets and parachutes.
Sorry to quibble, but she wasn't in free fall. She survived by being in part of a damaged plane. There are lots of people who have survived crash landings of airplanes that came down in multiple pieces.
She may hold the record for the longest fall among those people.
If we refine "doing it again" as "getting convicted of doing it again", then some studies go as low as 3%. Others...
Marshall and Barbaree (1990) found in their review of studies that the recidivism rate for specific types of offenders varied:
* Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
* Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent. * Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
* Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent. * Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent. ...go as high as 40%. A quick average for child molesters looks to be 15-20%.
Now add the following fact:
"A three-year longitudinal study (Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour, 1992) of 4,008 adult women found that 84 percent of respondents who identified themselves as rape victims did not report the crime to authorities." In other words, the real rate of rape is about 6 times what is reported by adults. Unreported by children we could expect to be similar. Does this raise the real rate of recidivism? Almost certainly. How much? That takes a better statistician than I to calculate.
Then add the fact that some of the reported rapes ( both of adults and children ) are not prosecuted for lack of evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt", and the real recidivism rates can only get higher.
In summary, if we define 'doing it again' as simply 'doing it again', then it is way more than 5%. Where's my pitchfork?
There seems to be two groups or two positions at work here: one which holds that all offenders can be reformed, the other that certain types of offenders cannot. Our current law is a mishmash of good intentions with no single theoretical framework holding it together. It takes the 'people can be reformed' position in allowing for the release of rapists ( both those who prefer adults and those who prey on children ), and then takes the opposite position with the creation of lists of people who are 'going to do it again'.
I don't understand the psychology of rapists, so I can't say which position is correct. But I wish that our criminal justice system would either choose one or the other.
It is clear that they are caused by global warming. I agree. It's feedback. They are one of the ways that the planet maintains its temperature.
You see, a low cloud blocks some sunlight coming in, but also blocks infrared going out. A very high cloud, however, blocks the same amount of sunlight ( not being significantly closer to the sun ) and blocks less infrared because only inrared going straight up will hit it. This works unless there is nearly 100% cloud cover.
Note to Misanthrope:
An interesting way of looking at parent's point is to look at a logical correlary. Assuming the following sentance to be a summary...
In an environment where the government actually has to abide by the constitution, the things that benefit you will also benefit those who you don't get along with. We can rewrite it as...
If you want the government doing things that benefit you, but that don't benefit those who you don't get along with, you have to have the government doing things that violate the constitution. Now you have a moral reason to have repugnant bedfellows.
The other forms of life had at least two parts: code and something that can execute the code. ( BTW, those two parts can be amazingly simple: see Stuart Kaufmann's writings on autocatalytic networks ) But retroviruses, by definition, only have the code part, and it can't evolve by itself.
So a complex code-and-execution organism can evolve from a simple code-and-execution organism. But a complex code-only organism can't evolve from a simple code-only organism. ( unless it hijacks something else's execution mechanism, which begs the question )
A 'rebel DNA leaving home' must have happened at least once, in some species, otherwise how could viruses exist? They seem way too complex to have happened by chance, and they can't evolve until they are complex enough to infect.
If I have beneficial bacteria in my gut that keeps dangerous ones from living there, perhaps we can revitalize some harmless retrovirus to compete for the niche that the AIDS retrovirus lives in.
Addendum: one of the correlaries to the above comment is that Ron Paul would support a do-not-call list with no exceptions: no politicians, no polsters, no charities. These groups are exempt from the curremt law.
I'll believe you, without any trouble at all. As best I recall, he had problems with the particular choice of executive departments ( FTC vs FCC ). He didn't so much vote against a do-not-call list, as he voted against an FTC-operated do-not-call list. He would have voted for the list if it were run by the FCC.
The issue is that when run by the FTC, as the vote authorized, the government is judging speech by its content. The FTC - the Federal Trade Commission - would be judging whether or not the speech is commercial, ie: trade oriented. And judging speech by its content is a first amendment violation.
The FCC, by contrast, would only be judging what type of communication it is. The FCC has a long history of banning certain types of communication: broadcasting on certain frequencies, or using too much power, etc. These don't violate the first amendment.
A formal legal opinion was expressed by Judge Edward Nottingham ( after the vote ):
"There is no doubt that unwanted calls seeking charitable contributions are as invasive to the privacy of someone sitting down to dinner at home as unwanted calls from commercial telemarketers...The FTC has imposed a content-based limitation on what the consumer may ban from his home, thereby entangling the government in deciding what speech the consumer should hear." In summary, Ron Paul made his decision based on first amendment issues. It is not clear that the issues of privacy or property rights even made it onto his screen.
BTW, all of the above is from memory. I can't find anything on the net explaining why he voted against it.
Slashdot Mirror
Parent presumably means removing the IRS.
1) A small black hole
2) A tiny bit of antimatter
...I wrote this with a web-based editor.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:IMo5tMSMfO8J:lessig.org/blog/Fact%2520Sheet%2520Innovation%2520and%2520Technology%2520Plan%2520FINAL.pdf+%22Barack+Obama+understands+the+immense+transformative+power+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Just a modest proposal: Every government employee - except for those working on confidential stuff - should have a 24-hour PUBLIC webcam on his desk ( The camera need not point at the desk, just at the person ) , his car, or wherever he/she works. Police / sheriff / prison employees / corrections officers, etc or anyone who may at some time have someone in custody should have two separate cameras in case one malfunctions.
Fossil computer? Does this mean it runs windows?
But they should delete greater percentages of XP...
Spaceship one was good for getting to the 'edge of space' and back. Being in orbit is a different thing. As a general rule, it takes 30 times as much energy to get into orbit as it does to just get up there. ( the number varies with altitude, of course, but 30 is a good back-of-the-envelope approximation ). The energy that has to be bled off when coming down is roughly 30-fold. So spaceshipOne is not even close to being able to do it. It requires new materials and/or a new design. Or stick with the high maintainence and unpleasant failure rate of the shuttle.
Or you can stick to the simple way of doing it with rockets and parachutes.
...especially when the reactor is not near me.
Yeah, the Russian commanders probably told them that they didn't have it so bad - the guys who were drafted in the summer had to do it without snow.
Sorry to quibble, but she wasn't in free fall. She survived by being in part of a damaged plane. There are lots of people who have survived crash landings of airplanes that came down in multiple pieces.
She may hold the record for the longest fall among those people.
If we refine "doing it again" as "getting convicted of doing it again", then some studies go as low as 3%. Others... Marshall and Barbaree (1990) found in their review of studies that the recidivism rate for specific types of offenders varied:
* Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
* Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
* Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
* Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.
* Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent. ...go as high as 40%. A quick average for child molesters looks to be 15-20%.
Now add the following fact: "A three-year longitudinal study (Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour, 1992) of 4,008 adult women found that 84 percent of respondents who identified themselves as rape victims did not report the crime to authorities." In other words, the real rate of rape is about 6 times what is reported by adults. Unreported by children we could expect to be similar. Does this raise the real rate of recidivism? Almost certainly. How much? That takes a better statistician than I to calculate.
Then add the fact that some of the reported rapes ( both of adults and children ) are not prosecuted for lack of evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt", and the real recidivism rates can only get higher.
In summary, if we define 'doing it again' as simply 'doing it again', then it is way more than 5%. Where's my pitchfork?
There seems to be two groups or two positions at work here: one which holds that all offenders can be reformed, the other that certain types of offenders cannot. Our current law is a mishmash of good intentions with no single theoretical framework holding it together. It takes the 'people can be reformed' position in allowing for the release of rapists ( both those who prefer adults and those who prey on children ), and then takes the opposite position with the creation of lists of people who are 'going to do it again'.
I don't understand the psychology of rapists, so I can't say which position is correct. But I wish that our criminal justice system would either choose one or the other.
You see, a low cloud blocks some sunlight coming in, but also blocks infrared going out. A very high cloud, however, blocks the same amount of sunlight ( not being significantly closer to the sun ) and blocks less infrared because only inrared going straight up will hit it. This works unless there is nearly 100% cloud cover.
An interesting way of looking at parent's point is to look at a logical correlary. Assuming the following sentance to be a summary... In an environment where the government actually has to abide by the constitution, the things that benefit you will also benefit those who you don't get along with. We can rewrite it as... If you want the government doing things that benefit you, but that don't benefit those who you don't get along with, you have to have the government doing things that violate the constitution. Now you have a moral reason to have repugnant bedfellows.
The other forms of life had at least two parts: code and something that can execute the code. ( BTW, those two parts can be amazingly simple: see Stuart Kaufmann's writings on autocatalytic networks ) But retroviruses, by definition, only have the code part, and it can't evolve by itself.
So a complex code-and-execution organism can evolve from a simple code-and-execution organism. But a complex code-only organism can't evolve from a simple code-only organism. ( unless it hijacks something else's execution mechanism, which begs the question )
That is a damn good question.
A 'rebel DNA leaving home' must have happened at least once, in some species, otherwise how could viruses exist? They seem way too complex to have happened by chance, and they can't evolve until they are complex enough to infect.
If I have beneficial bacteria in my gut that keeps dangerous ones from living there, perhaps we can revitalize some harmless retrovirus to compete for the niche that the AIDS retrovirus lives in.
Addendum: one of the correlaries to the above comment is that Ron Paul would support a do-not-call list with no exceptions: no politicians, no polsters, no charities. These groups are exempt from the curremt law.
The issue is that when run by the FTC, as the vote authorized, the government is judging speech by its content. The FTC - the Federal Trade Commission - would be judging whether or not the speech is commercial, ie: trade oriented. And judging speech by its content is a first amendment violation.
The FCC, by contrast, would only be judging what type of communication it is. The FCC has a long history of banning certain types of communication: broadcasting on certain frequencies, or using too much power, etc. These don't violate the first amendment.
A formal legal opinion was expressed by Judge Edward Nottingham ( after the vote ): "There is no doubt that unwanted calls seeking charitable contributions are as invasive to the privacy of someone sitting down to dinner at home as unwanted calls from commercial telemarketers...The FTC has imposed a content-based limitation on what the consumer may ban from his home, thereby entangling the government in deciding what speech the consumer should hear." In summary, Ron Paul made his decision based on first amendment issues. It is not clear that the issues of privacy or property rights even made it onto his screen.
BTW, all of the above is from memory. I can't find anything on the net explaining why he voted against it.
PS: sorry about the 'crack' comment.