Comment Re:Well done! (Score 1) 540
Nope, I don't mean amnesty. Way to show you have zero understanding of the real problems with the immigration system.
Next it will be "Remove all cars more than X years old because of pollution ( I know, you think a car manufacturer would not touch that topic, but they will) and safety issues.
Wow, you have a short memory.
I believe the typical rule of thumb when buying/building a house (bubble aside) is that it's worth ten years rent
Cite?
I just did some searching and found dozens of articles that put that rule of thumb at 15 years, and a fair number that put it at 20, but none that said 10.
Granted that as applied to Lucas' development it's a distinction without a difference, because Lucas would have to use a rule of thumb of about 150 years.
I dunno, I read it as George doing a "jar jar binks" [1] on his neighbors. You don't like the idea of a studio on my ranch? Ok, how about LOW INCOME HOUSING? How do you like THEM apples?
[1] Referencing reports that Lucas specifically retaliated against fans' dislike of Jar Jar in the first film by giving him increased time in the subsequent films.
That's a cool theory and all, except reality. How do a couple of cameos count as "increased time"? I think the more plausible theory is that Lucas pandered to the audience by making Jar Jar responsible for the rise of the empire.
Suppose that everything was true, except that they were there illegally (because there is no way for them to immigrate legally, which is the case for most Mexicans). Would your opinion of them change?
A more interesting question for those who would say "yes", if you could get them to answer it, is "Suppose that everything was true, except that they were there illegally, and they were white Canadians?". I think the truth that most who sneer at illegals won't admit to is that it's not just about their illegal status, and in fact it's not even mostly about their illegal status. It's mostly about race and culture.
If that weren't the case, why not fix the illegals' status by providing good options for them to get on the right side of the law? Because the law isn't really the issue.
Your nuts.
Go to Summit racing and see how many LS cylinder heads, pistons, cranks, and cams are available.
The smartness of the meter isn't the expensive part, it's making sure that power fed back into the system matches frequency and phase and cuts off when the grid loses power. You are required not to directly screw up your competitor, or engage in unsafe practices.
Grid-tie inverters that do all of that are necessary for this to work at all, long before you get to questions about supply and demand management.
Where on a continuum is "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?
I don't know, but it's certainly higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the standard for legal conviction.
With that said, if you want to establish "beyond a shadow of a doubt" as the standard for capital punishment, I'm good with it in theory. In practice it'll be even more expensive than what we do now, and odds are you'll never execute anyone because the standard is impossible to meet. Which I guess may make it inexpensive, because no one will bother trying. But I don't think abolishing capital punishment is what you actually want.
As to capital punishment being too expensive, that is because they can appeal for ten million years. Have the execution one year after conviction unless enough evidence comes forward to call the initial trail into question.
So you're recommending that we solve the problem that the standard of proof is uncomfortably low for taking irreversible action by lowering the standard of proof. Keep in mind that the standard includes not just the stated standard for the one trial, but also the structure of the system of appeals, etc., which is in place to ensure that that trial was conducted correctly, and the appellate process also deals in shades of gray.
Lowering the standard as a way to solve the cost problem is fine for you, since you apparently have no doubts about the possibility of convicting innocent people, but it will inevitably increase the percentage of the population that opposes capital punishment, because they do have doubts. Again, I think that's not what you want.
They want to control your actions by trolling you.
Bah. I form my own opinions, and my opinion is that the current process with all of the appeals in place is fairly good but very expensive. It's still not perfect, mind you, as evidenced by the number of death row convictions that have been overturned (often MUCH more than one year after the conviction), but I don't believe perfection is possible, and I don't believe that we should do nothing just because we can't do it perfectly. So, if cost is irrelevant, then I don't object overmuch to the system we have, and I also wouldn't object to your "beyond a shadow of a doubt" system, assuming you could build one that works.
Actually most hot rodders are using the new Chevy LS engines on older cars because they are so good and easy to work one even with the computer.
Google Chevy LS builds.
Sharepoint and Wordpress are languages?
" However, the main argument I've been making the whole time is that the existence of capital punishment creates a situation in which sooner or later innocent people will die at the hands of the state, because evn the lengthy appeals process is not perfect by any means."
So in cases where their is no doubt you feel it is okay?
Take the Boston Bomber for example.
As I said I am anti death penalty myself for the very reason you give but that argument could be changed to raise the requirement for the death penalty as well. As I was trying to say arguments can be made for both sides.
I never take joy in any death but I can see the need at times for such an event to happen.
In this case it would be to the north.
Because that would drive up food prices which would impact the poorest people the most.
You either have confidence in the system or you don't.
I'm largely in agreement with your arguments, but this claim is nonsense. Confidence isn't boolean, it's a continuum. It makes perfect sense to talk about degree of confidence, and one can have enough confidence to imprison but not to execute.
FWIW, my opinion is that I have no moral problem with execution following a proper trial with an appropriate standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt is good), but I'm opposed to capital punishment because it's a waste of money. It ought to be cheaper than life imprisonment, but because execution is final we add a raft of additional legal processes, with the idea that they help to raise our confidence in the correctness of the conviction enough that we're okay with taking this irreversible step. There are two problems with that: First, the additional processes still don't actually increase our confidence enough and second, they actually cost more than caring for the accused for the remainder of his or her natural life.
That second point is, IMO, fatal to the concept of capital punishment. If it's cheaper and easier to just lock them up until they die then the only possible justification for the death penalty is the theoretical deterrent effect, but no one has ever shown any compelling evidence that the effect is significant.
Southern California has a long history of stealing water from other places...
Time to just jack up the water rates so people move out.
Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin
