Not only does this give police a huge incentive to target people based on their income, but that does not give enough of a punishment to regular poor people. A $0 fine for a homeless person is not equivalent to a $50,000 fine for a millionaire.

How do you get that? the quote is poking fun at the infantile punishment metered out for punishments sake onto Lector. It was not aimed at providing closure to some victim, it was not to discourage future crimes by either him or others. It existed simply to hurt Lector because they they wanted to hurt him. He was providing the only two ethical solutions. I think Dr. Lector himself would argue that given the option between making him as comfortable as possible while attempting to prevent further crimes vs simply ending the threat to society for once and for all, the latter was the wiser of the two ethical solutions. And all this is forgetting that there is no real human being who could be locked in solitary confinement, with books or no, in perpetuity and have any kind of life. Euthanasia will always be kinder.

your and you're would be synonyms by now. That is problem with such an absolute. Yes languages change natural with use because much of what makes up a language is arbitrary. But much also is not arbitrary, it is a certain way because otherwise it would be impossible to communicate effectively. It does not matter how many millions of people regularly confuse your for you're it will never become correct because it is necessary for the language to have those words remain distinct.

Half these people probably cannot even add or divide, and 10% are probably illiterate. But for all means give then a 4 month coding course.

And it depends a whole lot of how much the people trust the legal system. A lot of countries have a populous that trusts its legal system, and at least some of that is from the executions it used to do. When some young girl get murdered or raped, the natural thing that happens in any culture is people will go out and kill people they suspect of doing it. Even in modern times in first world countries sometimes whole villages get massacred because some resident is suspected to be the rapist of some sweet young girl. Unless restrained by their government. In many countries their is enough respect of the law that that is all it takes. But that is not so in America. There is continual civil unrest and for some reason the government is not willing to address it. There are some crimes it does not matter if you catch the criminal, just that you publicly punish someone. There are just some crimes that free people will not get over. The rape of murder of a woman. Or, in America, the death of a black person. Arguably, not that this falls within those bounds, if America has executed some banker for he financial crisis. If they had executed Zimmerman. Etc. There would be more trust of the system and then the system would be given more leeway to dispense actual justice. But there has to be trust in the ruling of courts before that can happen.

Cloning would completely destroy the sport. The whole fcking point is the slow and laborious process of breeding the prefect horse. Every one unique. It is not about stealing a clipping of the winner horses hair and creating a copy, or generically engineering an even better race horse. Considering that both the sports and the breeding would be destroyed by the ability to just create whatever you want in the lab, how else are they to respond?

It completely destroys their monopoly. They basically just discovered how to factory produce diamonds, they have to make sure they are never worth as much or their entire organisation is doomed.

Ya, but that is a completely different situation. That is Europe, they don't allow their citizens to have guns, or speak their mind nearly as much as America. And I imagine that their press does not incite quite as much violence.

It should not be about that. If someone cannot be rehabilitated. If they must forever be confined for our societies safety, they should be killed on compassionate grounds. Requiring someone to be punished in perpetuity like some sort of hell on earth is barbaric.

“We live in a primitive time—don’t we, Will?—neither savage nor wise. Half measures are the curse of it. Any rational society would either kill me or give me my books.”

Killing is not for punishment. No one who says that legal system is about punishment knows what they are talking about. Legals systems are about civil obedience. When the victims, the populous, cry out for blood you need to give it to them or face civil unrest. It is about making an example out of people to discourage other lawbreaking.

This is grossly inaccurate. Placebos have been proven to not only have extreme psychological effects like curing pain, but also sometimes extreme physiological effects. For example, placebos have proven to be a good alternative to steroids for strength enhancement. Curing infections. There are any number of stories of people walking again or regaining their eyesight when given a placebo. There is pretty much absolutely nothing that is not positively influenced by placebos.

How does this fall considering his longstanding support of euthanasia? Did he fail to achieve his wish of assisted suicide when the disease got too debilitating? Did he change his mind? Did he die naturally before it became an issue? Did existing laws prevent him?

OK, but most expensiveness watches are not bought by watch guys, just rich guys who want something pretty on their wrists and the more expensive the better.

Considering Tesla actually is marketed more as a high end car than some save the whales green peace car I don't agree with your analogy. Tesla either is, or is in a great position to quickly become a direct competitor to those all levels of rich "car" guy cars. Yes they cannot win over the retro-revamed 1964 chevy muscle car guys, but the guy the goes out to buy a NEW Porsche is looking at Teslas. Apple is not and never could become a direct competitor to either those $30 cheap give give me the correct time watches, or those 1-2 hundred cheap look at this gold thing strapped to my wrist watches, or those multiple thousand dollar mechanical pieces of art.

What? Shouldn't we get competent people within their area of expertise do that? Isn't the BBS owned by the British government? Don't they have to explain their expenses and stay within their charter? AKA We give you X million a year to produce good British programming, not run amusement parts or build condominiums.