Even leaving aside the absolutely pathetic weight limit, that is not even an empty suitcase, or a single change of cloths, we already have these; They are called elevators.

I think the legislation shows that people accept that they must accept limitations of their freedom in the name of added security. If they were in denial people would not be so willing to accept any and all limitations.

By subject separates the distinct skills. If you suck at math and are still trying to pass grade 9 mathematics you can still take grade 12 English and history. This method would means that if you are slightly slower than the average at any subject you are floundering and cannot progress. And everyone has a subject they are slower at than the rest.

It sort of sounds like they might be getting rid of that customization. You just take the exact same courses of everyone else. There is no other way to run such a system.

There is a difference. Economics, geography, and history are intertwined and dependent on eachother. You need to understand the one to understand the other. Knowing the physics of trebuchets offers no further insight into history. In-fact since most of the people of those times did not understand them themselves it might actually make understanding that age harder. At the very least there is no benefit whatsoever in teaching projectile physics then as any other time before or after.

It makes a lot of sense to merge "economics, history, languages and geography" and talk about a slice of all of this while talking about really any event, organization, or nation. History is linked to all of these. But when do you teach calculus and chemistry? Even if you could find some reasonable time to intersperse them, it would never work. Some fields require current and indepth understanding of a whole host of concepts. Courses in Chemistry and mathematics are a constant ramping up of concepts. You cannot break it up without reteaching past concepts every time you do so.

How does that even work is the list millions of names long? It is not like any of this is highly guarded secret. If someone in america wants ti kill soldiers they would not need some random internet list to find any.

You might be surprised. From Google:

By those definition I think the stuff they had by WWII would of qualified. " used primarily by corporate and governmental organizations for critical applications, bulk data processing such as census, industry and consumer statistics" is the perfect way to describe the products IBM put out well before and well after WWII. The only thing we are missing is where they computerized mainframes? And I think they were pretty close. They definitely carried out arithmetical operations. And they definitively would of been customizable/programmable to a large extent; I am sure the same machine could be programmed to track a bunch of different data types and perform different arithmetic operations.

I just traded hunting rifles to the Sierra Leone rebels for diamonds, so they could feed their families. Fully automatic, armor piecing, hunting rifles. And Kim Jong Un told me he just wanted that Plutonium refined to build power plants with.

Well data tracking devices. Some of the first "computer" technology came about because of the governments wanting to track their populations (censuses). If I am remembering correctly IBM was founded by the guy who designed the "computer" capable to tabulating the yearly census at 1000x the speed of by hand (the population of America had grown at such a rate that it took considerably longer than the period between censuses to add up all the data). I think it is fair to label them mainframes, in reality it was something halfway between an abacus and a mainframe computer. It was of course even more important to keep track of the undesirables and their movements than of your entire population. So Head office (America) IBM did send the greenlight to produce some population tracking devices for the Nazis.

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.