1) I did not suggest anything. I noted the problem was the minimal cost and theorized about what would happen if that cost was higher. You jumped to a conclusion that I did not make.

2) If I were to suggest something, I would suggest that the state charge the police to use the item and send the money to pay for legal aid attorneys for indigent defendants.

I think that's the real problem. People get so excited over things before they even examine it.

The anti-vax people will find a way to ruin this for everyone else.

Just like they managed to kill a US soldier and get about 200 of them sick simply by changing the rules so that the soldiers do not have to get vaccinated.

This is about the 5th time I remember someone saying they found 'signs' of alien life, and it never is.

Yes, this is exactly what we wanted. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Note, this vehicle has all the luxury options too, they just do not come as part of packages, you can put whatever you want in it.

Decorations (wraps instead of paint)
Fancy lights
roof racks
Fancy audio gear
fancy seats
Tablet mounts to give you back that entertainment system

Cop sees a guy at midnight on his hands and knees looking under a street light. Asks him "What are you doing?"

Guy says "Looking for my car keys."

Cops help him look for a while and then asks "Are you sure you dropped them here?"

Guy replies "No, I dropped them over there in the dark but there is no chance at all I could find them there, it is too dark."

When you track things, you think you make decisions/rules based on what you track. But you can't really track the good stuff like effectiveness, creativity, or intelligence. Mouse clicks, key strokes etc. are what they track, so they build their AI on that stuff.

It's no different than looking under the street light - you won't find what you want, just the stuff that is easy to find.

This kind of thing is an unnecessary invasion of privacy that will result in an AI copying the mistakes of humans, not their best behavior.

Oh my god, I did not know that British conspiracies nut jobs are crazier than American ones.

Thank you for showing me that Americans are NOT the most extreme idiots that will believe the most extreme of propaganda lies just because some lunatic spouts it.

I thought it was only Americans that could not spot the difference between obviously false extremist "interpretations" of real facts and reality. I thought we were the king of being a shit head that makes up lies when other people catch us being shit heads.

(Legalized gang rapes = government attempts and fails to stop gang rapes and covers up their failures.
Legalized beheadings = government upset about racist comments after a stabbing.
Rape of 11 year is the girls fault = government stopping the release of the rapists name after sending him to jail for 12 years. etc. etc.)

1) This is the United Kingdom, not the USA. They do not have a First Amendment/ Freedom of Speech.

2) The Internet is a liar and Social Media is their king. The idea of trying to fix the problem, if only in Social Media is very very appealing.

3) There is a huge difference between regulating Social Media (aka "Gossip" sites) and regulating Newspapers, Magazines, Radio and Television. If only because Newspapers, Magazines, Radio and Television CAN be sued when they slander someone. Good luck suing some 12 year kid from Absurdistan that used AI to make it look like you murdered his Canadian Girlfriend.

1) You have been tricked by conservative propaganda. Cashless bail did not increase the rate of crime as compared to cash bail.

2) NY law (and NJ and Illinois) explicitly refused to release violent offenders on cashless bail. California does NOT have a cashless bail law, but the state supreme court has encouraged judges to set cashless bail for non-violent offenders. Both states have explicit language about non-violent only..

3) There were cases when people arrested for non-violent crimes were released on bail and then committed violent offense. There were also cases where the legal definition of violent offenders were ... arguable. But the law said no violent offenders could be released and that law was followed.

4) The real question is, do you think poor people should have no rights and upon being arrested should have to wait in jail for a year or more just because they are poor? You do realize that this will a) cause innocent people to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit if it means they get out of jail in 6 months rather than waiting there a year before they go to trial. b) will destroy their lives even if they are found innocent because a year in jail awaiting trial means they lose their job, house, girlfriend/wife, all while getting assaulted by real criminals, trained by real criminals on how to commit crime and finally JOIN criminal gangs to survive.

5) If you release more people on bail, the number of crimes go up, obviously. This does not mean cashless bail is a bad idea or causing a problem. The question is not whether cashless bail releases commit crimes, but instead Whether people released on cashless bail commit more crimes than people released on cash bail. The answer to that is no. People released on cashless bail are no more likely to commit more crimes than people released on cash bail. The number is about 17% of people released - for both cash bail and cashless bail.

6) If you think the bail system in general is too lenient, you have a better argument, given that 17% commit more crimes.

7) However the real problem is the time spent in jail before trial. Justice should happen in less than 3 months, not more than 12.

8) Cashless bail for non-violent offenders reduces the number of people that end up becoming hardened criminals. That has been proven repeatedly.

9)Most importantly states with cashless bail have LOWER crime rates than states that require cash bail.

There is no way us liberals from NJ (217 violent crimes per 100,000), Illinois (218/100k), and NY (380/100k) are going to follow the advice of idiots from Texas (389/100k), Missouri (462/100k) or Louisiana (519/100k).

NJ and Illinois are just too good at crime prevention to care what the conservatives say. NY (and California) are middle of the pack and might listen, but not likely when idiots talk dumb shit and make up lies.

Given that the price of memory is so high that cell phone production is dropping like a stone, it is clear to me that used cellphones will end up being worth a lot more - both for this kind of networked computing and merely to remove and reuse parts

We already have printers called 4d printers. It's designed to change shape over time. This allows you to print something with less supports that while 'drying' bends itself into a shape that would have required a lot more supports.

The nordic prison system has a recidivism rate is 20% within the first 2 years and about 25% within 5 years. The US system is 39% within 3 years.

Why don't we use something closer to Norways?

Because the Conservatives call it 'soft on crime'. They have 3 levels of prison: High, Low and Transition. The Low Security prison they use for non-violent first time offenders is what the GOP calls a 'country club' type with private rooms, lots of classes, library and therapy.

You only get their High Security if you were violent or become violent in the Low Security prison.

They also have a half way house/ transition system where they live in a prison but are allowed to go to work outside.

But this is clearly not "Hard on Crime", so Americans refuse to use it.

Note, in my opinion the "Hard on Crime" approach fails because normal prison is hard on crime so when someone claims to be Hard on Crime, what they end up doing is:

1) Push Judges and Police to be hard on SUSPECTS, resulting in more false accusations and more time in Jail waiting for a trial - both of which encourage people to commit more crimes.

2) Push newbie criminals to make friends in jail with the criminals as the guards are cruel and dismissive of the prisoner's concerns.

3) Prevent criminals from getting training and other resources they need while in prison, resulting in a much harder time getting out of the criminal life.