- The murderer killed someone - He then posted the video - Those who saw it, a jury of his peers, found him guilty - Rather than cost society a lot of money to try him, and perhaps acquit him on an insanity defense, he took his life and cost society nothing more than a manhunt.
To the pro death-penalty folks, imagine how many years this would have played out in [mandatory] appeal after appeal after appeal at family grief expense (and taxpayer expense).
To the anti death-penalty folks, not to worry, God took care of this one for you, and you don't get to question God's will.
Wow, can you imagine how much better our society would be if everyone that committed a murder (or rape, or whatever violent crime) would then kill themselves? That's 0% recidivism with 0% cost.
You don't want a flying car... and I agree 100% with your reasoning (see the first post I posted above...)
What people mean when say say "flying car" is - a vehicle that will show up at their doorstep - transport them to their destination - will be [relatively] fast - will be safe
The imagined appeal of flight is that you can just zip up, zip sideways, zip down, and be done, ala The Jetsons. The reality of flight in regulated airspace is that there are air-traffic control communication messages, assigned altitudes, directions, and speed, minimum traffic separation, and other things which we TAKE FOR GRANTED yet OBEY ALL THE TIME when we drive on the roadways.
Let's just admint we're begging the question of the technology not being possible to meet both the side-impact DoT safety standards and the weight requirements for carrying real cargo in the air yet fitting in an 8' wide traffic lane... so given that we'll not discuss this again,
Making that magical traffic-controlled drive three-dimensional doesn't solve for anything. Everything that takes off must land. Everything that can't land is a risk of falling out of the sky. You can't create parking spots in the air because (hey no infinite power) so the fundamental limitations of 2D traffic will exist with 3D.
Your point is spot-on. IF I WERE THE ONLY ONE WITH A FLYING CAR, MUHAHAHA then it would be awesome. But given that I'm on Earth and lots of people want to fly and none will want to deal with either the technical or regulatory headaches... it is not going to happen.
Note: Pilots do a preflight check of the aircraft before every flight. It takes me 20-40 minutes on the helicopter. How many of the readers here just "get in the car and go"?
From what I read Randi is suffering from some disconnection from reality, unable to perceive the world the way it is, and feeling a narcissistic compulsion to attempt to "educate" everyone else as to the altered state.
Truly delusional people are fascinating... for a few minutes at best. Randi's 15 minutes were up in 2015.
You're not sorry anyone's offended by your illiterate offtopic rant. You're just trying to claim your privileged status to spew on public forums because you feelz your opinionz are more important than the topic being discussed.
You are wrong.
Next time you feel like opining off-topic and spewing on a public forum, knowing you're wrong in doing so, and pretending it's ok because your narcissistic attitude of "not caring about others' opinions" somehow makes that right...
Now go slink off into the sewer from whence you came.
E P.S. If any of the words I used upset you, or triggered you, or micro-triggered you, just read them again.
You can get your news from the Bible. You're just uselessly out of date. You can refer to Jestin Coler and not ever google him but go on for two sentences about him and still not bother googling him.
All that tells me is you're not just out of date... but lazy as well. Further, because you did spend the two sentences to show your pride at your slothfulness I sense you're just ripe to be punished for your deadly sin.
The Internet is the greatest single advancement in communication delivery mechanism in the last fifty years but it's still only EVOLUTIONARY.
Print gave man the ability to send messages over distances. Telegraphs added distance, and newspapers added quick turnaround of information. Some of the stuff in newspapers wasn't factual. We call that "fiction".
Radio took what was in print and added a voice to it, making it available to many more people and more often and at an "easier" appeal than reading newsprint. Some of the stuff on the radio wasn't factual. We call that "fiction". You may have heard of Orson Wells' War of the Worlds scare. That did not lead to a call to censor radio as well it shouldn't.
Television took what was on radio and added images to it, making it available to yet many more people and with an appeal that merely listening to the box wouldn't get. Some of the stuff on the television wasn't factual. We call that "fiction". You may have heard of Three's Company, All in the Family, Married With Children, Dallas, etc. These did not lead to a call to censor TV as well it shouldn't.
The Internet took what was on Television and allowed EVERYONE to participate. The gatekeepers of the N major US networks or the government broadcasters abroad no longer prevented ANY OF US from publishing, creating stories, audio, video, which includes fact reporting as well as fiction.
Calls for censoring "the Internet" are a mislabeled cry to censor PEOPLE. The Internet is just a medium, and it's actually barely that -- it's more a carrier mechanism that allows real media (audio, video, VR, text, graphics, etc.) to allow communication between one to one or one to many or many to many.
Censorship of a communication mechanism shouldn't be discussed lightly, and when that mechanism is what has provided the biggest boost to human communication in half a century even less lightly, and when the excuse of the day is fake news, well, consider this:
Four years ago the following would have been censored under these "ideas": Donald Trump, his daughter, and her husband, now control the US government.
In another life we had an ISP that had IPv6 working for years. We bought Internet transit service from [unnamed national cable company] and asked for IPv6 transit. They said they could provide us a tunnel but not native IPv6 but one day they'd get it.
We offered to consult for them [at their rates] and they declined. The problem wasn't that they COULDN'T or DIDN'T KNOW HOW... the problem was that they had no DESIRE to provide IPv6 and their resources were all being spent to a)fix up the copper plant, and b)build up the fiber plant, and c)pay executives more.
Nobody with spending power wanted to setup, provide, or fix IPv6.
If cable companies had really gained 2.7M subs and telcos really lost 600K subs then we'd have to scratch our collective heads as to where the United States, with 124M households all of a sudden found 2.1M of them to hook up to cable.
Data analysis suggests several things, but I'll save you my own analysis and suggest that the sources are lying.
No, three million people did not leave telcos and go sign up with cable last year. That's 3% of US households and that kind of a monumental shift absent aliens landing is so beyond likely it's not funny.
What, cable companies gaming the system and lying about stats to pretend there's no cord-cutting?
Congratulations on making Let Col[sic] in whatever video game you were playing.
If you were a real Lieutenant Colonel ("Lt. Col") you'd have known this is a discussion about Walter O'Brien being a fraud, and not the TV show. Nothing on the TV show is discussed in this thread. Feel free to read the first post or the last post or anything in between. They are in English and pretty clear.
When a federal regulatory agency says they'll review something "on a case by case basis" that means they will never do that. The FCC failed the US by failing to regulate (or ask for legislation) against zero-rating.
Net neutrality is a concept... and it's either a good one or a bad one depending on who is lining your pockets. The FCC is ENTRUSTED with not having its pocket lined and in finding the greater good for the greater number.
Ajit Pai is a demagogue pandering to his lobbying masters. He does not represent anything good for the United States. Just like his orange master.
Welcome to my northern neighbor. As you point out, the House more accurately represents the voters. The Senate (as I pointed out) is *always* two Republicans. The governor (with the minor exception of the Lt Gov being promoted, good job, Janet Napolitano) is also a Republican.
About 1/3 of Arizona is Republicans, and mostly in Maricopa County. The 1/3 that is independent has its votes diminished due to the districting. That is exactly gerrymandering.
In principle, perhaps. In reality gerrymandering is so prevasive that redistricting somewhere is always on the agenda. If it's actually fair (representative of the people) then one party or another tries to change it. If it's not fair, the other party tries to change it, usually with a court's aegis.
Anecdotal example: In Arizona the Republicans have less than 1/3 of the vote but the senators are always republican, chosen by the voters of Maricopa County (Phoenix).
The United States was never meant nor designed to be a true democracy. The House and Senate and "The Grand Compromise" of the electoral college were thought out as a method to prevent hysteresis. Clearly this election has shown us that some loud mouths are too hysterical to dampen.