GeorgiaDon

The full ruling may be found

So you suggest we only invest in developing technologies that are already fully developed? Doesn't that seem, well... redundant? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Once you put it that way, it becomes obvious! If it isn't on video, it didn't happen! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well sure, I think I did say that if he really wanted to kill her he could have done it with his hands, or any number of implements. For that matter, he could have made it look like a home invasion robbery, or made her "disappear", or whatever, if the intent was to just get rid of her. I was just quibbling with the comment the "Belcher didn't lose his temper". Maybe he had some plan to kill her, then kill himself, though that seems like a remarkably stupid plan. Shooting her 9 times would seem to indicate either a lot of anger or a desire to be really thorough or both. None of that either proves nor excludes a role for "losing his temper". I don't know, and I don't much care, what the intimate details of this particular tragic story are. I said before that guns are just inanimate tools, so the "fault" of whatever happened is with Belcher not a lump of metal. I'm just saying that not all tools are appropriate in the hands of all people at all times. In an ideal world it would be great if people would recognize when they are getting so angry they are likely to lose control, and take some action so they don't have a gun in their hand when that happens. How to make that happen, I have no idea. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That is actually banned. Well then, I guess they need to ban driving drunk even more. They just aren't banning it enough and should ban alcohol. Not sure what you're arguing here, or if you're arguing anything. "Making the perfect the enemy of the good" is a common tactic if you actually don't want to do anything at all. Somehow I doubt that you're suggesting that the fact that people sometimes violate laws is an argument that we shouldn't have laws at all? Comparing guns to cars is pretty silly. Cars and guns are both tools for particular functions. Sure, you can kill someone with a car if you're determined enough. However, I've never heard of a would-be bank robber passing the teller a note that says "I have a car". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Maybe you've seen some news article that offers evidence that this murder-suicide was premeditated; I haven't. Just saying it's quite possible the initial murder was done in a fit of temper, and the suicide because he realized he'd fucked up big time and his life was basically finished. True, if his intent was to murder his girlfriend. It's just a lot easier to do with a gun, and there is generally less opportunity to change your mind part way through the process. The thing about losing your temper is that it's pretty much incompatible with "thinking it through" or "intent". One squeeze of the trigger and it's all over. Much more drawn out to do it with your hands, or a lamp or fireplace poker, though of course those will work if you really mean it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Why can't "all of the above" be true? Guns are just inanimate tools in the hands of people; people are highly variable in their behavior, and they interact with their environment in complex ways. In the hands of the law-abiding, guns can provide some measure of protection and security, especially if those people are trained in how to use them. However, it is silly to pretend that having an efficient tool will have no effect on someone's behavior. I would never dream of jumping from a plane without an appropriate tool (parachute). I probably wouldn't have tackled some of the construction jobs I have if I didn't have power tools to make the job feasible; although I could have done it with hand tools, it would have taken forever. In the hands of certain people, I am sure guns are tools to do a job that they could do with a knife, but might not care to risk. Guns are also highly efficient, so a flash of anger combined with a gun may have consequences that are instantly regretted. You can kill someone with a garotte, but you have to really want to do it, that's not something that will happen in a flash of anger. One of the arguments people have used against AADs is that they create a false sense of security, and encourage people to attempt jumps that are beyond their skill level. I'm baffled when people make such an argument regarding one tool (AADs), yet get all bent out of shape at the suggestion that a different tool (guns) might have a similar effect on some people. So what if Costas vents his anger and frustration at the needless deaths of two more people? The second amendment isn't going anywhere. The supreme court has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right. No-one is coming to disarm you. Let Costas blow off steam. He is no real threat to you. Or does "gun rights" now mean people aren't even allowed to be upset at the senseless loss of life that is facilitated by ready access to such an efficient tool? Is doubling down on guns the only permissible response to you? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

My great-grandfather used to have a hay business, back in the day when milk and ice were still delivered by horse-drawn cart. He thought those new-fangled "automobiles" were a passing fad that would never replace horses, except for the rich people. He stuck with that until he went bankrupt. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I meant "psychopath" in the sense of people who are indifferent to the needs of others, being able to see only their own desires. My understanding is that there are a lot of people who qualify as psychopaths in a clinical sense, but who don't run afoul of the law as they perceive that not to be in their best interest. Perhaps my understanding of the term is incorrect? I think that we have succeeded as humans in large part because we do collaborate, and sometimes take calculated risks to benefit others. The payoff is that they might also come to our aid when we need it. It's interesting that we have evolved the ability to feel empathy for one another; judging from behavior there aren't too many species where that happens. My comment about a "civilization of psychopaths" referred to a society that would result if everyone adopted the attitude of "I take care of me, and fuck everybody else". There's also those who back off to a safe distance and then watch. The urge to rubberneck is a pretty strong trait. But, your point is taken. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm sure I am. I'm sure you're right. And, I'm constantly amazed at how many people seem to exist in their own little bubble, completely unaware of anything beyond the IPod stuck in their ear. I also suppose that in a crowd, everyone might hesitate for an instant, expecting someone else to take action. Speaking only for myself, and recognizing that I was not there so this is purely hypothetical, I am fairly confident that if I was standing 10 paces from a guy who is standing with his head and shoulders above the platform, waving his arms and screaming for help, I would take those 10 steps, grab his hand, and pull for all I am worth. I hope I'm never in a real-world situation like that to find out. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I finally googled the actual photo that was published. I had thought that someone would have had to jump down onto the tracks to help the guy; instead I see a picture of someone with his arms up on the subway platform, with his shoulders level with the platform. He wasn't able to pull himself up, as he had nothing to grab on to, but virtually anyone of adult size should have been able to grab his hand or his coat and pull him up enough to have been able to swing his legs up and onto the platform. No need to jump onto the racks, no need to put anyone else at risk. 22 seconds is a long time, more than 1/3 of a skydive, and there were a number of people in the photos who clearly seem close enough to have helped. I don't know how close or how far away the photographer was, with lenses and such he could have been quite far away and unable to do anything. I don't blame the photographer any more than any of the others who were close by. Did anyone have a legal duty to help? I suppose not. A moral duty? That's a lot more complicated. Do any of us have any duty to give anyone a hand? Even if that action involves little or no risk or cost to ourselves, and extreme consequences (such as death) for the person in need? I'm sure some would say "no, we have no such duty". I wonder what sort of a society would result if we all adopted that attitude. A civilization of psychopaths. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Cases like this illustrate perfectly why the notion that our "rights" come from "our creator", and so do not need to be enshrined into law, is just plain delusional. The news article doesn't say anything about penalties being applied to the police. Maybe that will come in a later proceeding? Anyway it seems obvious that this police action was nothing more or less than an organized shake-down to separate law-abiding citizens from their money by holding their vehicles for ransom. Irrespective of any monetary award to the victims (which will only end up penalizing the citizens of Detroit), the officers who conceived and organized this scheme should be tried for organized crime, and should do jail time. Only a punishment like that will deter other officers from organizing similarly motivated shake-downs. Kudos to the ACLU. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And were it not for a tipped pass that happened to land right in a Georgia players hands, so that he reflexively caught it instead of letting it hit the ground and stop the clock, it could very well have been Georgia facing ND. Also what do you mean "Alabama would have won both games more convincingly"? Alabama lost to A&M. Indeed, if Alabama had been called for their dirty, extremely late helmet-to-helmet hit on the Georgia quarterback, it's quite likely they would not have been able to capitalize on the turnover, and again the game would have turned out differently. I wonder how much the referees were paid to look the other way on that play? Alabama's biggest weakness is that they believe their own press. They'll likely do better if they realize they can be beaten, and don't count their national championships before they're earned. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Even lower than the 3 stooges? Really, I don't see how anyone might have anticipated that this poor woman would have committed suicide. Must have been something else going on in her life for this to be "the straw that broke the camel's back". Sad. A more likely consequence is that rules will be put in place that will make it harder for anyone to phone anyone in the hospital. Kind of like a rogue base jumper burning an exit point. I hope that doesn't happen, but it seems a not too uncommon side effect of pranks like this. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So once again they are all playing stupid games instead of getting down to work. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

True enough. But your doctor, accountant, and attorney are licensed by the government, in order to establish minimum standards of training, and misconduct can result in the loss of the license as well as other punitive measures. This is actually an example of how we rely on government for many services we aren't even aware they provide. At the top, though, we place it all in the hands of people who often aren't asked to present any qualifications beyond access to lots of money, and maybe (as a distant 2nd) the ability to deliver a barn-burner speech. If politicians as a group are deserving of the contempt many (most) people have for them, we have to ask why such people get elected, and why others who are thoughtful and have the appropriate training and experience don't, or choose not to seek office at all. Case in point, if Huntsman had been selected as the Republican nominee I would certainly have considered him very seriously, but from the very beginning he was a non-contender against the likes of Perry and Bachman. By the way, I don't agree with the idea that every single politician is incompetent and only there for their own power, but the system does seem to select for such people. And, ultimately, the "system" is the voting public. And that is "US". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Certainly that is true. Indeed, there is (or has been) a level of temptation that is hard to resist with easy credit. Why wait until you can pay cash for that plasma TV when you can get it now? Never mind that you'll pay half again as much in interest, don't you want it right now? Instant gratification and the need to have the latest gizmo has replaced forethought and planning for many. I think the problem is "US" on several levels. "We" tend to take for granted, even demand, services and infrastructure provided to us by our society, but insist that others should pay for it. For too many people, the world does actually work that way: they get the benefits without shouldering any of the costs, which breeds resentment on the part of those who do pay. Political "scientists" tell us that "if you're explaining you're losing", and it's true, so we end up electing politicians who feed us bumper sticker slogans without any substance. We all claim to be repulsed by "attack ads", but numerous studies have shown that they work. By being too lazy to think seriously about issues, and by falling for political lies, we have turned politics into a theater of the absurd instead of a means of selecting the most knowledgeable and thoughtful people for political office. Indeed, the problem is "us". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm sure SkyDekker will answer for himself, but in my case I thought corporations at least seek to make a profit. None of the agencies SkyDekker lists are profit-making, nor do they seek to be so. Indeed, one might argue that the proper scope of government is to provide essential services that are inherently not marketable for profit. Of course, we can quibble endlessly about what "essential" means. What I take from your earlier post about "government is a corporation" is that ANY organization with any level of administrative structure is a corporation. Any club that has a "president" and a "budget officer" has an administrative structure and so is a corporation. The problem there is that when a term (corporation in this case) is so broadly drawn that it includes everything, it becomes useless to describe anything or provide any level of nuance. Corporations are entities that exist to sell a service or a product at a profit. Governments by definition should never be corporations. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Welcome back! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No matter how you do it, someone will complain. Or maybe everyone will complain. I doubt the NPR model will work well for even the most essential government services: just put them out there and then guilt people into contributing whatever they think they can maybe afford. 95% of the recipients will pay nothing but still demand a quality service. Alternatively you can mandate that everybody pays (i.e. taxes), and then they cry about being "robbed of their freedom" or whatever. Or, you can just not offer the service, and people complain that there's so much crime, or the air stinks, or they can't find qualified people to work in their business. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Actually, I think I was the one who asked first, and that was because you usually have something funny/thoughtful/interesting to bring to the discussion. I know you're responding to Kelp, but I'll just say that there are no perfect solutions (IMHO), just compromises, sometimes messy, to get things done. then nothing that could not be exploited for a profit would ever get done. Where is the profit in treating sewage before it's returned to the river? Who is your client base who is going to pay you to do that? Does that mean we would be better off/more free/whatever if people just dumped their raw shit in the river? There's tons of things that have to get done to make for a civilized society, where everybody benefits but no "product" is made that can be sold. Well, I suppose we could just foul all the water and then sell bottled water to the people who can afford that, and everybody else can just risk cholera every time they take a drink. Same with air I guess, those who can afford it can breath bottled oxygen, the rest whatever comes out of the smokestack. I don't really get the "government should be like business" argument. If business can do something efficiently and make a profit, then business should be doing that job. Government, by default, should be doing those things that have to get done but are not amenable to profit. There's lots of scope for discussion about what really has to get done; I would include providing basic education to kids whose parents can't afford private schools, but I'm sure there are lots of people who would say fuck 'em, they should have selected better parents or whatever. I don't disagree about the art on the bridge thing, though. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hey! Where's my cookie? Don By the way, do you have a source for what you posted? It doesn't..... Seem, like something...... you, would write! (though if I'm wrong I apologize in advance). _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Out of genuine curiosity, what would be your alternative? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Not really, just curious how you would resolve the conflict. I think it's pretty obvious that is just what the courts did here, and it's not the first time (nor will it be the last). Much of what I find objectionable in the Patriot Act involves unnecessarily casting away rights to make it easier for "Homeland Security" to carry out surveillance and to imprison people without inconvenient details like charges and trials. I think a big part of the problem in the case you bring up is the notion of searching even probationers without any probable cause. If they have a history of drug issues then I suppose there is probable cause to drug-test them when they check in with their probation officer, but that's not adequate in and of itself to randomly search their property in my opinion. Of course, my opinion is also that it isn't the responsibility of the law to protect people from themselves. If someone chooses to fry their own brain, that's their business. The "war on drugs" has probably been used to justify even more intrusions on personal liberty than the "war on terrorism" has. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Out of curiosity, how would the government determine what the market will pay for someone to do a job for which there is no equivalent in the free market? Keep lowering the pay until they can't get anyone with half a brain to take the job? It seems like a good strategy if you want to fulfill the Conservative mantra that the government can't do anything right: only hire people who are too incompetent to get any other job. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)