While global warming can be stopped, it cannot easily be reversed due to the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Solomon et al. 2009; Eby et al. 2009). Even a thousand years after reaching a zero-emission society, temperatures will remain elevated, likely cooling down by only a few tenths of a degree below their peak values.
AC also wrote:
From the US point of view, if we can't stop it (which I don't think we can no matter what we do) why hurt ourselves before the pain needs to be felt?
Because while we can't stop global warming entirely, we still have time to mitigate it.
Because global warming will exacerbate international and regional conflict.
Because the U.S. economy is connected with the rest of the world, and isolationism would have catastrophic consequences.
Remember that this particular controversy is about allowing prosecutors access to a list of "problem officers" so that they don't have to rely on their testimony in court.
It has nothing to do with ridding the sheriff department of deputies who have a record of domestic violence, brutality, theft, falsifying reports, etc. Nope, their jobs are entirely safe, regardless of how this lawsuit turns out.
The Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs argues that the disclosure would violate state laws protecting officer personnel files and draw unfair scrutiny on deputies whose mistakes might have happened long ago.
"Mistakes" made by these deputies include "domestic violence, theft, bribery and brutality".
Because who hasn't slipped up and totally accidentally brutalized someone. oops!
Why should the cost of the window come out of the pocket of the victim?
Bureaucratic hassles notwithstanding, under already-existing Arizona law, it doesn't have to.
Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-603:
C. If a person is convicted of an offense, the court shall require the convicted person to make restitution to the person who is the victim of the crime or to the immediate family of the victim if the victim has died, in the full amount of the economic loss as determined by the court and in the manner as determined by the court or the court's designee pursuant to chapter 8 of this title.
Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the new criminal laws are necessary.
...
“If they get thrown in jail, somebody pays to get them out,’’ she said. “There has to be something to deter them from that.’’
Ooh! Maybe they could also seize the assets of people who pay the bail for to get people out. And seize the assets of defense attorneys too! I mean, why stop at just an attack on the constitutional rights of protesters? Need to bring the whole criminal enterprise down, amirite?
....
On a related note, R-Snowflake is just a little too on-the-nose.
Like I have said here before, before crossing the border into the United States, you just simply factory reset your phone, and wipe it clean. That will solve the problem of phone searches.
The problem of phone searches is the government seizing and searching your personal property and violating your privacy without a warrant.
Deleting your data in order to protect it from the government is not a solution to this problem. It's a workaround, and a high-cost one at that. It may be advisable, it may even be necessary, but it does nothing to address the fundamental problem: This is attack on our civil and human rights.
On the post: EFF: Data Collected From Utility Smart Meters Should Be Protected By The Fourth Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
From The Copenhagen Diagnosis:
AC also wrote:
Because while we can't stop global warming entirely, we still have time to mitigate it.
Because global warming will exacerbate international and regional conflict.
Because the U.S. economy is connected with the rest of the world, and isolationism would have catastrophic consequences.
Because the U.S. is in fact already being directly affected by global warming.
And finally...
Because we shouldn't be selfish assholes.
On the post: EFF: Data Collected From Utility Smart Meters Should Be Protected By The Fourth Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
We do have the evidence to show that. That you believe otherwise does not change this fact.
On the post: New DOJ Boss Says He Hasn't Read DOJ Investigations Into Abusive Policing, Calls Them 'Anecdotal'
Re:
On the post: California Law Enforcement Union Sues To Block Police Accountability
Re: Re: Mistakes might have happened long ago
On the post: California Law Enforcement Union Sues To Block Police Accountability
Re: Mistakes might have happened long ago
On the post: Arizona Legislators Approve Bill That Would Allow Government To Seize Assets From Protesters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(Poesian? Poetic?)
On the post: Arizona Legislators Approve Bill That Would Allow Government To Seize Assets From Protesters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Justice
On the post: Arizona Legislators Approve Bill That Would Allow Government To Seize Assets From Protesters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Justice
Thad wrote:
Goddammit Thad. [Closes techdirt, revealing 87 open TV Tropes tabs]
On the post: California Law Enforcement Union Sues To Block Police Accountability
Keep in mind
It has nothing to do with ridding the sheriff department of deputies who have a record of domestic violence, brutality, theft, falsifying reports, etc. Nope, their jobs are entirely safe, regardless of how this lawsuit turns out.
On the post: California Law Enforcement Union Sues To Block Police Accountability
"Mistakes"
"Mistakes" made by these deputies include "domestic violence, theft, bribery and brutality".
Because who hasn't slipped up and totally accidentally brutalized someone. oops!
On the post: Arizona Legislators Approve Bill That Would Allow Government To Seize Assets From Protesters
Re: Re: Re: Justice
On the post: Arizona Legislators Approve Bill That Would Allow Government To Seize Assets From Protesters
Re: Re: Seizure
I'll need to know more about paid vacation time and health benefits before I commit, though.
On the post: Arizona Legislators Approve Bill That Would Allow Government To Seize Assets From Protesters
Re: Re:
And... they've "temporarily detained" the bus driver and seized the bus. Now how am I supposed to get home?
On the post: Arizona Legislators Approve Bill That Would Allow Government To Seize Assets From Protesters
Re: It's Constitunal only when it suits you I guess
Actually, scratch that. The answer is not seriously at all.
On the post: Arizona Legislators Approve Bill That Would Allow Government To Seize Assets From Protesters
Re: Seizure
Where are my Sorosbucks? Do I need to fill out another W-4 or something?
On the post: Arizona Legislators Approve Bill That Would Allow Government To Seize Assets From Protesters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Arizona Legislators Approve Bill That Would Allow Government To Seize Assets From Protesters
Re: Re: Re:
Michael asked:
Bureaucratic hassles notwithstanding, under already-existing Arizona law, it doesn't have to.
Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-603:
On the post: Arizona Legislators Approve Bill That Would Allow Government To Seize Assets From Protesters
Ooh! Maybe they could also seize the assets of people who pay the bail for to get people out. And seize the assets of defense attorneys too! I mean, why stop at just an attack on the constitutional rights of protesters? Need to bring the whole criminal enterprise down, amirite?
....
On a related note, R-Snowflake is just a little too on-the-nose.
On the post: Google Report: 99.95 Percent Of DMCA Takedown Notices Are Bot-Generated Bullshit Buckshot
(I suppose Bot-Built Bullshit Buckshot was too much of a stretch.)
On the post: Sen. Wyden Wants Answers From New DHS Head, Introducing Legislation To Create Warrant Requirement For Border Phone Searches
Re:
The problem of phone searches is the government seizing and searching your personal property and violating your privacy without a warrant.
Deleting your data in order to protect it from the government is not a solution to this problem. It's a workaround, and a high-cost one at that. It may be advisable, it may even be necessary, but it does nothing to address the fundamental problem: This is attack on our civil and human rights.
Next >>