Um, yeah, those unwarranted searches of persons and property are also big money. See also, Civil Forfeiture. Which should also be unconstitutional but somehow keeps happening (Probably because it's big money.)

Yeah, I've known a couple of people who've been sucked into pyramid scams. And I mean classic, textbook examples of pyramid scams. In both cases they told me about this amazing new investment opportunity they're taking part in. I listened for a minute and then told them it was a pyramid scam, and they got hostile and defensive. I think they didn't like thinking they could be fooled into something like that. I never did hear how either of these turned out, though neither of the people involved did get to retire a year later as they'd hoped they'd be able to.

There are tons of ways to make them more effective, none of which we use. We could set up speed cameras to ticket everyone who's speeding. We don't. We could just mandate in-car GPS tracking and not even allow speeding in the first place. Even the shittiest car you can buy likely has a speedometer that tops out somewhere past 100 mph. The car might not be able to actually get to that speed, but by God they're putting it on the speedometer! Hit any portion of any interstate that has a speed limit of 55 mph when it's not backed up from rush hour traffic and just TRY to do 55 mph there! You'll get a lot of hate from the rest of the traffic, which is going to be doing 70-75.

Nope, tickets are all about revenue. The speed limits are enforced almost entirely arbitrarily, although every so often they do actually pull over someone who's being very reckless. If they were enforced much more stringently, people would start demanding that limits be raised and revenue would dry up. If you used some technical means to prevent people from speeding, revenue would dry up (As would sales of overpowered sports cars.) Of course we can't say that, because arbitrary enforcement of a law would be unconstitutional.

Just leave it in the glove box for the next customer.

Rush Limbaugh's tasty prescriptions

Hillary Clinton in Gold Nipple Rings

These are some of my favorite things!

There may not be such a thing as proper English, but yours is still bad!

That's certainly an aspect of it. Also, I've found it takes about a year to come up to speed on a code base and business process. I mean, really knowing it inside and out. If you come onto a project already knowing the problem that's being solved, the reasons it's being solved and how the team works, that's a huge advantage. You're much more likely to do that on an open source project. Companies hiring short term contractors are never going to see that level of productivity or design insight because they're turning people over too quickly for those people to learn how the company and software operates. People who don't really know how everything fits together will start fixing bugs, and the design of the software will start to suffer. If it was ever designed in the first place, which it usually wasn't.

Too bad he's not in a position where he could write some sort of law about it. If you can't fix the problem from there, the problem's not fixable. I'm guessing the majority of the American public either approves or doesn't care. I guess in which case, is the problem even a problem? I mean clearly some people here and this guy seems to think it's a problem, but if the vast majority doesn't agree, are you going to tell them they're wrong? I'm pretty sure that's the definition of fascism. Just sayin'...

1. As long as the clone is healthy and able to live as long a life as the original without complications from the cloning, it ought not to be a problem. I haven't been following the state of the art with cloning, so I'm not sure if we can make a clone able to survive as well as the original yet. I'd be surprised if this task is insurmountable. Maybe in a couple hundred years you just go to the DNA bank and 3D print a new horse from its DNA.

2. There's an element of "follow the money" here. Breeding in those industries is big money. Will the ones who make the most from breeding be opposed to cloning, or would they want to be able to copy their best animals for perpetual breeding income long after the original died? Of course, the species can't improve through cloning, so even if the process is perfect it really shouldn't have a huge impact. Couple three generations later, the breeding competition should be able to come along with a much better animal than that copy some breeder has been hoarding for a few decades.

I honestly don't see why anyone would ask this question in the first place, frankly. Either you want vengeance and will be satisfied to see them explode in a shower of guts, or your conscience is going to speak up for the first time in years and tell you that what you're doing is wrong. You shouldn't be complaining about wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Killing a dude is serious business. The people complaining need to face that or not do it.

Oh yeah, a doctor could kill someone quite easily if it weren't for that inconvenient oath they took to do know harm with the knowledge they've been given. They won't even look at it as a very very very late term abortion. Stupid ethics, always screwing up our fun...

Just get a New York City cop to choke them. That seems very effective. Problem solved. You're welcome!

I mean, you could just not execute people. You know, seeing as how so many innocent people have been sent to death by racist juries or prosecutors extracting confessions from them with unethical measures. And how it costs a lot more to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. But that's just crazy talk! We can't have a vengeance-based legal system with thinking like that!

There are a few products on the market that offer eye tracking mouse control. I don't know much about them or how well they work, but it might be worth a try. I'm pretty sure I've seen one or two brainwave-sensing ones, but those probably require goop or no hair, or both.

Nipple. Funny bit of trivia, some guy in IBM patented that thing and they sat on the patent for years thinking no one would like it. Every so often you'd think they don't really have their finger firmly on the nipple of the marketplace.

Those guys have already proven that they're willing to compromise the security of their hardware for anyone who waves a few bucks at them. Is anyone actually considering buying one of their machines after all that? Or maybe they just think that we have the attention span of a three year old?