The purpose of criminal justice is to keep bad people from harming society.

Yes, and politicians act out of the common good to serve the interest of society as a whole. And a Good and Just Lord protects all the little babies and bunny rabbits from harm.

Utah folded. Only death row inmates who chose firing squad before the law change in 2004 can still be executed that way. There are 3 presently.

On a cursory search, the first charts seem to suggest that at a viewing distance of 10' (hardly super close), that 4k becomes visible with a display as small as 25-35". At 20', between 50-60", which due to falling prices is quite a common screen size for new tvs. Some other charts vary a bit, but you're definitely exaggerating.

Personally I think we all ought to skip 4k and go straight to 8k, because 4k isn't enough of an improvement.

It's a good thing making something illegal completely stops it from occurring.

By your logic, we should only have one party if votes are to be meaningful, and clearly that is the opposite of the truth.

We do only have one party that can win at the national level. It has two sects which differ slightly on some aspects of some issues.

Pretty good folk would never drag you off in chains, imprison you, and brand you with life-destroying felon labels for something you do alone in the privacy of your own home. Every cop has done or would do this. End of story.

Here you go, courtesy of my mothers AARP magazine. Nothing new and scary there, just a phone.

And if that compartment is actually full of drugs and you didn't know? (This sort of thing has in fact happened).

Personally I think laws against both are unconstitutional, but that's not the best argument. Good luck ever convincing anyone in the legal system you didn't know.

I second that. It's well established that intelligence is associated with strong belief in social justice and right/wrong in general. There's a very strong argument that taking drugs is not wrong, and drug laws are a great social injustice in countless ways. How can you respect laws that are so obviously wrong if your morality isn't based on external dictations?

As a hoarder, my downloading has slowed down quite a bit. I've downloaded every TV show and movie I'd ever be interested in watching, in HD if available. Now the only downloading I do is new episodes or new movies (and of course when something I like comes out higher quality). I am indeed quite satisfied with my 10TBs of 281 movies and 82 full series.

But streaming/pay services for video in their current form will never see a penny from me. For the way I consume media, their shortcomings are a deal breaker:

• Streaming is wholly unacceptable since it requires an internet connection. Offline viewing, and viewing without "buffering..." if it drops out for a minute, is important. Even "1080p" streams are noticeably worse than actual Blurays (and 12gb rips for that matter). Streaming should be AN option, not the only one.
• Permanent copies in a non-DRM'd format are still not the norm for movies/tv. They haven't learned from music.
• There's no excuse for such poor selections and different services offering different things. It's a blatant example of corporate greed preventing what consumers want.
• So are all types of geographic limitations/delays.
• Even more infuriating is when items available are removed from the service. And when the service itself up and shuts down.

None of these are limits of technology, and all of these are why legit offerings can't compete with illegal ones, regardless of price. Fix all of those, and add what is lacking in pirated sources (bonus materials, dl speed on some stuff, ease of access), and you'll find that like audio, legit video can also successfully compete with free.

Some public defenders are good. A lot aren't. And they're almost universally saddled with far more case work than they can effectively handle. In my experience, they decide who is deserving of a break and focus more on their case. And this is first hand experience from inside the system.

This should be modded informative, not funny. The reality is that if you're travelling with any large amount of currency, the cops can and routinely do seize it. They've even seized bail money brought to the police station. It's done under civil forfeiture laws, and you then have to prove in court that the money came from legitimate activities. Often at an expense that exceeds the value of what you're trying to get back.

Seems like every job these days conducts a criminal background check. But what that actually means varies widely. Some jobs will of course bar anyone with any felony whatsoever, but the proposed regulations are somewhat more reasonable:
"Any felony criminal conviction within seven years prior to the date of the background check for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, fraud, use of a motor vehicle to commit a felony, a violent crime or act of terror, a sexual offense, a crime involving property damage, and/or theft will make the applicant ineligible to be a TNC driver."

The "zero tolerance" policy on the other hand is much more onerous. Apparently they want to require the apps to have a feature to report suspected intoxication, and a single such report will trigger an automatic suspension until it's investigated further (implicitly until they complete a drug/alcohol test). While it may sound reasonable on the face of it, consider the potential for false reports based both on good intentions and worse, bad intentions ("that guy disagreed on [random political issue]! click, suspended!"). The training program isn't detailed, but that could certainly dissuade non-professionals if it requires actual online/offline classes.

Source: Full CPUC Proposed Rulemaking (via TechCrunch) (PDF) http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/169457749?extension=pdf&from=embed&source=embed

I had a 12 hour delay at Gatwick (UK). They gave us a single £2 voucher and nothing else. Had to wait in the terminal. If I had to guess, they would be required to provide accommodation in another hour or two... because after 12 hours they made us board the plane. But then we didn't leave the gate for another 2 hours (and they wouldn't let us back off to sit inside). Total 14 hours. Also British Airways, back in 2000.

If you're with your friend, sure. But if your friend comes up to you and says 'hey, I just robbed a store and killed someone!', you are not legally responsible for the act nor obligated to tell the police. With drunk driving, if you're just a bystander, you're not liable if you know your buddy is drunk driving if you're not with him and not providing him with alcohol. You must act in furtherance of an illegal activity after you have knowledge to be liable.