I think the idea is that it would eventually render bad cops uninsurable, and thus, unemployable.

Really, though, these are all suggestions to get around the central issue; cops look out for their own, even in the face of blatantly criminal behavior. It's a cultural issue, more than anything.

What? And offend the police union? Do you have any idea how much money the unions spend to elect politicians who will never hold them accountable for things like this?

Politics.

For the life of me I can't understand why everyone wants to keep insisting we load everything on a ship with the astronauts and send it all there at once and HOPE nothing goes wrong along the way that kills everyone.

Instead, how about this: we send automated "builder" ships to Mars with a mission to excavate pits in the Martian surface, place inflatable habitats in them, inflate them, then cover them with enough soil to protect against radiation. Monitor the damned things to make sure they're working properly, THEN send the astronauts. If anything goes wrong, at least you know they've got a place to stay until we can get help to them. Obviously you'd need more than just inflatable housing, but this idea pre-supposes you send some sort of power generation facility (nuclear would be best), life support, and enough food for a year or so.

Even better, in addition to the above, send one or two "return trip" ships to Mars ahead of the astronauts so they have a redundant way to get home if something goes wrong. Send a fuel refinery as well that can take Martian atmospheric CO2 and turn it into rocket fuel so you don't have to send fully-fueled ships all the way to Mars. If you start it refining before the astronauts leave Earth, you can have full tanks ready to go by the time they get there.

All of this is completely achievable with current technology and reasonable timelines. Why in the world we're screwing around with trying to do everything in one trip -- along with the massive risks and massive risk mitigation costs that go along with it -- are beyond me.

Not being a Christian isn't a provable health hazard. Not being vaccinated is.

Put this another way:
If measles goes through a small town public school with a thousand kids, three of those kids will die. Several will have life-long aftereffects.

If you vaccinate every human being in a large city, *1* will have *some sort* of adverse effect.

If 'reducing possible harm to children' is actually your end goal, there's no way in hell you'd argue against vaccines.

The problem, really, is that there are entire generations who've never seen a playmate die of measles, or have the polio leg braces, or the like.

Sorry, but that's all on the level of pointing out that dihydrogen monoxide is a universal solvent, causes horrible burns in it's gaseous state, induces tissue necrosis in it's solid state, will suffocate you in it's liquid state, and that excessive doses will cause seizures, among other problems.

Yes, this. It seems like the logic here is 'to get a gov't job, you must pass a polygraph test. This man taught people how to skew the results of that test.'

Note that the requirement to get the gov't job isn't 'be truthful and accurate when answering questions about things like criminal history,' but 'pass the polygraph.' Validity of the polygraph doesn't enter into it.

Hey, there's a lot of science and engineering that goes into making a good combat-capable sword.

Well, that's the other issue; historical and cultural context.

"We shall spread the word of our God by the Sword!" -- heard many times in history.

"We shall spread rational inquiry and the scientific method by the Sword!" -- never heard in history, to my knowledge.

The bible is written that way because it is trying to translate Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek. You can make a readable translation or an accurate translation to English, but not both.

Correct. Personally, I would hope that, when translating what is purported to be 'instruction manual for avoiding eternal damnation, and methods for right thought and living,' they'd go with 'accurate.' This has, however, been objectively proven not to be the case.

With a 'real car,' how many times can you simulate losing control and going into the wall?

Sorry but 53 million in assets for foundation with that level of operating costs that is rising every year is hardly awash in money. Harvard has a 36 billion dollar endowment, that's an example of an organization awash in money.

I'm in Canada mind you, so maybe it's different in the US. RCMP are mostly pretty decent, albeit we all know there are always a few bad apples.

High River, Robert Dzienkanski, Frank Lasser all immediately come to mind. There are others.

Simply put, the police have extraordinary powers, therefore must be subject to extraordinary scrutiny.

Alternatively, just watch some swatting videos on youtube. It's pretty scary.

Couple that with 'no-knock' warrants....