If pre-crime tech is only used to reduce crimes like robberies and the like, fine. But given some of the things that have been made illegal — or what some people want made illegal — do we really want that kind of society?
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
1 question..
what is the average number of police per capita?
I would think that a 1% rating would be enough to curtail many crimes.
BUT, the biggest crimes?? are not done at the 7/11.
+1
The biggest crimes are not done at gunpoint either!
(…And they usually occur in Washington D.C. too.)
True, that guy can steal at most, a few thousand $
An investment bank can wipe off thousands of people’s life savings with a single click.
Now, which one of the two is the worst criminal?
The system of license plates on cars is a pre-crime initiative.
ECA is exactly correct. In the video, the pre-crime criminal wasn’t arrested, he was deterred. Thats a good thing isn’t it?
The best defense against unpopular laws is to fully enforce them. Thats why Pukes get voted out of office whenever they actually follow thru on what they promise. Then the stupid electorate votes in the next batch of liars.
Here is an accurate predictor of criminality available to anyone who is interested: rich Republican Businessman running for elective office = criminal, both pre and post crime.
Romney’s Political Platform reads like an indictment to me: lower taxes “for everyone,” remove inheritance tax, cut social services. All equals a crime in my book. And yet it is supposed to be “a tight race.”
Silly Hoomans. Cutting your own throats and wondering where the blood is coming from.
Yea, most people would rather not pay $10 a gallon for gasoline, or thousands of dollars more to buy a car. Or hundreds of dollars more a month in health insurance.
What about $2 – $3 for a light bulb (CFLs) when the old filament type cost two for a dollar? So now we have to use CFLs only, because they stop making the cheaper one. Which burn out a bit quicker, that true. But they’re brighter at the start. They don’t have to warm up. I bought a case of the older bulbs, to last me a few years.
I’m not against CFLs, I think they have their use. But stopping the incandescence bulb sales entirely, was a marketing move to force us to buy CFLs, that will climb in price, now that they have no cheaper alternative.
NFS–I don’t get the connection of your post to the thread or my comment.
But to the issue of gas prices, in my mind shipping dollars to foreign producers is a national security issue. The government can try to go micro and mandate what kind of lightbulbs to buy or can go macro–imposing tax/cost on the resource at issue and allow market forces thereafter to find the most efficient solutions?
As to lightbulbs–I thought that was obvious? Its life cycle cost and cfl’s are cheaper by that metrix. Exactly what the government should be doing. Why outlaw lead additives in gasoline when society overall is hurt by such short term attractive marketing points? Same with cheap but damaging Edison Lightbulbs. Some bad choices are so obvious they should be illegal.
The alternative of informing the public as to the life cycle cost of incandescent vs cfl is an alternative==but if the public could act in its own self interest, we wouldn’t have most of the problems we all are saddled with.
Let’s see how far we can pull this post out of orbit:
So, what do you think is the best dog breed to own?
I had a chow chow but it developed health issues with hip dysplasia. Now I have a Japanese Chin which is healthy. So given my experience I think I prefer the old filament type bulbs but am not opposed to CFLs if they perform as well. Even if they cost more.
bobbo, why are you in favor of inheritance taxes? I’ve never understood why this tax exists other than as an easy money grab by the government. Why shouldn’t you be able to do with it as you wish when you die without incurring additional taxes? If it is ‘fair’ to do so, then why is there a cut off? The cutoff expressly indicates that it isn’t fair.
Well, thank you Unc Dave. I agree with your “first impression” of the issue, its very appealing isn’t it?
My introduction to the issue years ago was from what the effect of generational wealth accumulation/tax free transfer resulted in: a landed aristocracy controlling more and more of a country’s wealth as time goes on. Not job creating but actually job stifling as the capital to bring new products/services to market is squirreled away in non productive private art collections and the international jet set life style of no productive quality at all–its all consumptive past the first, sometimes second, generation that built the wealth to start with.
I do agree it is a “freedom” issue and there is great appeal to the notion that Mr X made it, he should keep it, and give it to anyone he wants to–in fact that is the tax avoidance choice of most people who want to avoid the inheritance tax, achieving the goal I suggest quite readily==giving the money to close heirs getting it back into the economy.
There are pro’s and con’s to either choice. I just don’t see much wrong with Bill Gates giving each of his kids several millions dollars to go their own way rather than giving them Billions of dollars each while 50% of Americans are on food stamps with such programs to be cut because we don’t have governmental revenue to support them.
People “over involved” regarding money, wealth, the accumulation and protection thereof are a worthless lot. I can’t think of anything beyond an over reaching base human self involvement that justifies it.
Thats the starting point of my value system on the subject. More details/arguments as tangents may impinge the subject.
The problem with inheritance is that its a device used by the rich to pass on their wealth.
For the 99%ers, its not much of a problem. Most it gets recycled anyway except for real estate which was there before you and will be there after you.
Most of the 99%ers own very little real estate.
The last time that somebody tried to rectify the situation got us a real-estate bubble that the 99%ers are all going to be paying down for a generation. (Bush was a complete, total and utter idiot.)
For the 1%ers, they pile up a few million but that’s likely to be frittered away in a couple of generations. Money is like water, what doesn’t just evaporate away in taxes gets soaked up by inflation. Its a minimal legacy. Might as well take the temptation (and the cash and assets) away. Every thing but the real estate.
For the billionaires (to which we’ ve added a few dozen to their number of in the last, and bloodless, information revolution,) the 12,400 individuals identified by the IRS and the few dozen in each civilized country (that leaves N.K. entirely out of the running*,) they have legacy and inheritance problems on an entirely different and unprecedented scale.
The billionaires now have corporate structures which take endowments by, for and from their benefactors, and make these perpetual.
The only way for the truly wealthy to be come less wealthy is through extravagances that beggar the imagination.
Take all earning curves as weighted to the lesser amount. Its lonelier as you get richer.
If you got married and gave your spouse a thousand bucks a day, if you’re a 99%er, a thousandaire, s/he’d be back within a day (for most of us [there are plenty of people on this planet who will never see a thousand bucks all in one spot,]) for a shrinking minority of us, possibly lasting up to 2.8 years.
If you got married and gave your spouse a thousand bucks a day, if you’re a 1%er, a millionnaire, s/he’d be back after 2.8 years up to a comfortable demise many, many, many years later.
If you got married and gave your spouse a thousand bucks a day, if you’re one of the 12,400, a billionaire, s/he’d have to last for at least 2,738. years before the money ran out.
Nobody has got that kind of endurance.
*) North Korea is trying to intimidate its way into having a legacy, but they already have one and if they try to improve that one, they’re going to be remade into a series of smoking craters.
Entertaining, no idea what are saying here but it was fun to try to figure it out.
Even if we take away all the money from billionaires, it doesn’t come close to resolving fiscal problems in the government much less the long term debt problem. Even if it did, it wouldn’t actually do anything for the poor, hungry, or homeless. I understand it sucks, rich people are doing well while so many are struggling just to survive. For me, the question is more what do we do to help those that are struggling and less about how we should bring the rich down. At the end of the day, getting rid of the rich people won’t solve the problems it will just create different rich people.
Help people, do what you can every day. The anger at others, while justifiable, is not going to feed someone who is hungry, give someone a home, or a job.
Inheritance taxes are a way to give ore property to corporations, which never die. Running businesses have a large cash flow, which can be valued highly. Then you have to sell the business to pay the estate taxes, and needing to find a buyer quickly means a benefit to the buyer. That’s how franchise stores end up in the corporation’s hands. Family farms go to agribusiness. All enabled by liberals with an eye on fairness.
It’s a crime to let people who produce wealth keep more of it, but it’s not a crime to take it from them. The “logic” of the statist mind.
Ken–second really stupid dogma driven drivel I have noticed you make. Must be quite the LIEberTARD! Ha, ha. You have your friends here. Idiots all.
Can you tell us all how a dead person “keeps” his wealth?
Can you recite the three main reasons that a progressive income tax makes sense?
Can you demonstrate any appreciation of the reality of how societies work as opposed to cartoon heroes from the comic books?
Years ago, my mother witnessed two guys jumping into a car and speeding away. She took notice of their car’s plate number. Later she heard the local jewelry store had been robbed. So she told the cops what she saw. And they caught the guys, minutes later, with the goods in the car! At the trial, which my mother was called as a witness to, the Judge expressed his disbelief as to why these men should commit a robbery. So he ordered psychological exams for them. Instead of a criminal sentence. Maybe that came much later. But we never found out. I’m sure the Judge was thinking of his reelection coming up. So he had to appear to be lenient, to the folk who sided with the robbers. But who ever heard of a Judge questioning the mental state of thieves before?! This was back in the 1960s. When MLK jr was a really big deal. So you can guess what race the robbers were.
weird, how come ibm’s “solution” doesnt recognize the crime of this “solution”?
They really should apply these Analytics to white collar crime on Wall Street. To stop the likes of Burnie Madoff from happening again. And stop these banks from creating more bogus investment schemes like mortgage default swaps. But you know this will NEVER HAPPEN. Because “pre-crime” Analytics will only be applied to those that have no political clout in the US Congress or the rest of government. The biggest criminals always get a free pass to avoid prison. If they pad the right pockets. Just look at Dominique Gaston André Strauss-Kahn. Martha Stewart and Burnie Madoff, would have too, if they had done their political homework. But of course, the government needs to make a few examples, once in a great while. So we don’t suspect that they let the other 99% get away with it.
Pre-crime won’t be use to stop big crimes. Just insignificant little crimes. And maybe civil unrest, in the future.
Ya, thats what we need.
I wonder if the crook would have even bothered with that store if he had known the clerk carried a pistol and had a shotgun under the counter and video cameras catching the scene in technicolor . . .
In case it isn’t obvious, this is a subtle hint at the need for PROFILING!
Personally, I have no problem with profiling unless “suspicion” is defined as wearing or driving things that “look odd” or “out of place” to a police officer – especially if it’s purely based on race. Now, if a police officer sees someone talking to trees or trying to order a hamburger while completely nude then that’s OK to stop them ans ask them “what’s the deal?” It’s called “reasonable” suspicion. But, unfortunately a lot of cops (and a lot of people) really have no idea what that means.
Big YUP!
#1 precrime initiative is Roe v Wade.