Lots of people hungry in the western world. Kids who don't have breakfast/lunch is one that seems quite common. The food banks around here can't keep up with the demand, which has been steadily increasing and over 300 communities here where the water from the tap isn't save to drink. I doubt that Musk or Maria would give up shelter and/or food (if they were capable of understanding what they were giving up) for a flight around the world/to Mars. Of course neither probably has never experienced hunger so wouldn't understand what they were giving up.
During the cold war, spying was done on supposed communists. During the '60's, spying was done on the hippies and socialists, at that spying on people who might be socialist or anarchist goes back to the beginning of the 20th century at least, with the Supreme Court at one point ruling that tapping phones did not violate the 4th as they weren't doing it to your physical possessions. Not long after they instituted prohibition and spied on potential bootleggers, which led to more prohibition and spying on the evil drug users. The electronic spying started with Lincoln ordering the tapping of the telegraph lines, which was more efficient then going through the mail. The big difference was it was socially acceptable as they only spied on evil people and of course they were limited in how much spying they were capable of. It has just become easier and easier to expand their net until today when they can record most every phone call and much of the internet traffic.
Don't worry, the new free trade agreements coming on line were partially written by the content holders and loopholes like safe harbour provisions will go away in the name of harmonization
Well, just illegalize divorce, illegalize sex without marriage and enlarge the State to spy on everyone full time in case someone has sex without being married to who ever they're having sex with. Of course we'll have to get rid of encryption as you might be using it to get laid. Pretty quick marriage will come back to life and people will stay married no matter how much suffering it entails.
That's true of most of Central and South America as well as 3rd world countries every where. Is the average Haitian better off then the average Cuban? What about Dubai, where the workers are dieing like flies? Saudi Arabia, where woman aren't even allowed to drive, little well have any other civil rights, and the imported labour is also treated like shit. There's a lot of shithole countries, many where the poor are treated a lot worse then Cuba. This includes pre-Castro Cuba, which I understand had death squads, leaders who lived like Kings while their subjects were forced to whore themselves out for a piece of bread.
The real question is how does Cuba compare to other similar countries. Is the average Haitian better off then the average Cuban? Does the average Cuban have to worry about death squads like much of Latin America? Do Cubans worry about getting beheaded for expressing themselves like many Mexicans do? How many children are forced to go bare footed due to not being able to afford shoes? How's the crime rate? Is the average Cuban better off then the average Cuban in 1958?
You do know that GMO is a tool and like all tools, can be used for good and bad. Just because so far it has been used for good does not mean that it'll always be used the same way. We live in a capitalist society and history has shown that given the chance, the capitalist will choose profit, even if it means taking shortcuts that are harmful. Hide the use of the tool and possibly the businesses will start taking shortcuts on testing, with a "good enough, lets ship" attitude that seems to eventually infect so many businesses. So just because so far GMO has been used responsibly, does not mean it will always be used responsibly as it just takes one ex-tobacco CEO to be in charge of a GMO product line.
Of course most people have to slow down. Timed traffic lights are the perfect example of using a carrot to enforce the speed limit. Speed and all your lights are red. Go the speed limit and all your lights are green. Won't work in corrupt jurisdictions as they depend on the stick to enforce speed limits and raise revenue with safety an excuse. Seems that they used to be common around here, drive for miles in town with no red lights. Now I think they time it for traffic management/calming as every light seems to be red, which just leads to frustration rather then safety.
Before the industrial revolution, employment was close to a 100%, now it is probably less then 50%. We have whole classes of people who have left the workforce. The 5-25 year olds by themselves make up a good chunk of the population. The stay at home Moms who look after the unemployed young. The old who used to decently drop dead when they seized to be productive. The disabled population has grown a lot as well. The people the government counts as unemployed. Then there are all the slackers who don't even put in 66 hours a week. We're a long ways from full employment. Of course we're also rich enough that we can afford to remove many groups from the employable and could remove even more, but to pretend that we haven't removed close to a majority of people from the employable list is dishonest.
History has many cases of the rich killing off their slaves, it's very common as the rich are usually very paranoid about the slaves revolting. The worst that usually happens is that the rich have some lean times, where lean means having to cut back on their yacht purchases and such. Occasionally the not quite as rich team up with the poor and do kill off the rich, which usually leads to the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" situation. And of course it is the poor that are volunteered to be cannon fodder
The peasant revolts are a bad example unless you're trying to show that revolting against a well armed ruthless nobility is useless as not one of the peasant revolts succeeded.
That's only partially true. During the times of the Luddites, it took 3 generations (70 odd years) for employment to increase to close to full, after a significant proportion of the population was shipped of to the new world. Around the turn of the 20th century a move was made to reduce the number of people in the workforce due to automation. Woman were turned into homemakers and children were taken out of the workforce, as well as limits being put on the hours worked by everyone else. The trend of taking children out of the workforce continues with the length of time that people stay in school continuing to increase. My parents get by fine with about a 8th grade education. My brother graduated out of grade 10 to go to technical school and become a well paid glazier. Now kids are expected to spend at least 4 years in collage/university. Things were also pretty horrible for the poor in 18th century England and only the large amount of land available in the New World etc made things bearable in the colonies and the new nation of the USA.
They certainly knew how to be specific if they wanted to be. They actually defined the crime of treason in the document, down to the number of eyewitnesses that were required.
They just used the current law on treason (minus the parts about fucking the queen etc). Can't find the exact quote right now, which was very close to Article 3 but from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...,
Two witnesses rule
Section 22 of the Act prescribed that in order to indict, arraign or convict a person for high treason, petty treason or misprision of treason, they must be "accused by two sufficient and lawful witnesses." However, the witnesses did not have to have witnessed the same overt act of the offence.
This rule was abolished in 1554,[5] except for treason under the Treason Act 1554.[6] However it was later adopted in the Sedition Act 1661 and the Treason Act 1695,[7] the latter of which was inherited by the United States due to its origins as part of the British Empire. In 1787 a version of the two witnesses rule was included in Article III of the U.S. Constitution (section 3), which added that both witnesses had to have witnessed the same overt act. Article III reads: "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
The simplified version, we elect the House of Commons, the part of Parliament with most of the power, much like you elect the House of Representatives. Whichever party can get the confidence of Parliament, basically enough votes to pass a budget, forms the government. Laws are passed by Parliament, much the same as Congress, but whichever party forms the government appoints the Prime Minister and cabinet, who can pass orders in council, which are similar to Presidential executive orders to run things. The government is responsible to Parliament, who are responsible to the people. Due to party discipline, votes in Parliament are almost always along party lines, which with a majority, translates into a defacto dictatorship until the next election as the party will almost always support the PM, who is the leader of the party. The party can decide to change leaders, which means a different PM but it hardly ever happens here. Australia did do this recently. If no party has a clear majority, then the parties have to work together and compromise to get a budget passed and usually the government is formed by the party with the most seats. If no party can pass a budget, Parliament gets dissolved and a new election is called, and usually the voters aren't happy and will punish whichever party wouldn't compromise.
In Canada, the government can just sign a treaty though sometimes they're polite and ask Parliament to ratify it. Parliament still needs to pass any laws that go with the treaty. It doesn't really matter though as our new government is on record of being in favour of it and all free trade and the public consultations they've promised can't do anything anyways. And of course the government has a majority in Parliament, with the party always voting as a block and the opposition also in favour so only the socialists are against it. Our only hope is that the Americans reject it and that is so unlikely...
There are ways to infer wild fires. Certain Pines need fire to open their cones and allow the seeds to germinate. Other types of trees such as Douglas Fir need the openness that fire brings to grow as they can't handle shade. Then there are the wounds that fire cause, that 2,000 year old Red Cedar shows the scars of each fire that it survived, with growth rings to date the scars, same with the dead one in the peat bog. Then there are the layers of ash in the soil, not as accurate, still evidence The history is there if someone can read it.
Yes, and Australia also has claims to be the 51st state. Canada is kinda special, the Americans in their first Constitution included a clause that the Canadian provinces automatically got Statehood just for the asking. We border them, have gone to war a few times (last time the only casualty was a pig and the higher ups weren't happy that most of the fighting happened on sports field and the pub/tavern, see Pig War). Modern Canada was actually formed to avoid becoming American States just after their civil war. While Canadians generally define ourselves as not American, there is a sizable minority who actually like America (vs Americans who are generally nice people) and to Americans, we were the natural way to continue expanding, being more culturally similar then any other country. And of course we'd be States 51-61
They wouldn't need a warrant to barge into your house, and because their reason for entering the house were legitimate they'd be able to bust you for the pot plants they find there.
Which sounds like saying if they enter legally, they can bust you for whatever they stumble across.
I think the vampire rules apply here as well, not sure how I feel about it as it's a classic case of conflicting rights and I can see both sides.
Is your 4th amendment really that weak? Up here (BC) the cops would still have to go and get a search warrant to search for pot plants. There was a case recently where the cops, with a search warrant (not for marijuana plants) found a grow-op while searching a house, left (keeping the house surrounded) and got another search warrant for the plants before returning and searching the house again. I'd assume it would be similar in those cases when they can enter a house without a warrant. (basically imminent danger to someone) Our rules on "fruit of the poisoned tree" aren't even as strict as yours.
Not an American or a lawyer but in a similar common law jurisdiction. One example is the case of an accident with unconscious driver where the police think alcohol was a factor. They can phone a Judge, swear they think alcohol was involved, get a search warrant and ask a Doctor or medical technician to remove blood. The Doctor or medical technician is free to say yes or no. So with a warrant, they can ask but not force. They also have to take 2 blood samples and make one available to the defense for independent testing. Around here as often as not the Doctors do say no as it usually means too much court time as witnesses.
It doesn't work that way, especially if one country is much bigger then the other. Look at the free trade agreements between Canada and the US, 2 first world countries. In theory tariffs are removed, American Congress person (speaking for industry) claims that Canada subsidizes softwood and implements tariffs, various international tribunals, courts etc agree that Canada is not subsidizing softwood, tariffs remain. America being 10x bigger has that much power as they are not as dependent on Canadian goods as Canada is on selling to America. Eventually America agrees to knock of a percentage of their tariffs, Canada is happy to get anything. Yesterday our PM and your President agree to redo the deal when it is really Congress that sets the terms, lather and repeat. As an aside, why does everyone think the President is all powerful?
That's the theory, in practice it seems that whoever repeats something the loudest is believed. Unluckily there doesn't seem to be a better system as even the educated would rather believe what agrees with their personal philosophy rather then what is actually true.
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of people hungry in the western world. Kids who don't have breakfast/lunch is one that seems quite common. The food banks around here can't keep up with the demand, which has been steadily increasing and over 300 communities here where the water from the tap isn't save to drink.
I doubt that Musk or Maria would give up shelter and/or food (if they were capable of understanding what they were giving up) for a flight around the world/to Mars. Of course neither probably has never experienced hunger so wouldn't understand what they were giving up.
During the cold war, spying was done on supposed communists. During the '60's, spying was done on the hippies and socialists, at that spying on people who might be socialist or anarchist goes back to the beginning of the 20th century at least, with the Supreme Court at one point ruling that tapping phones did not violate the 4th as they weren't doing it to your physical possessions. Not long after they instituted prohibition and spied on potential bootleggers, which led to more prohibition and spying on the evil drug users.
The electronic spying started with Lincoln ordering the tapping of the telegraph lines, which was more efficient then going through the mail. The big difference was it was socially acceptable as they only spied on evil people and of course they were limited in how much spying they were capable of.
It has just become easier and easier to expand their net until today when they can record most every phone call and much of the internet traffic.
That's true, most poor have armies of servants on call, are raised in palaces and have never known hunger.
Don't worry, the new free trade agreements coming on line were partially written by the content holders and loopholes like safe harbour provisions will go away in the name of harmonization
Well, just illegalize divorce, illegalize sex without marriage and enlarge the State to spy on everyone full time in case someone has sex without being married to who ever they're having sex with. Of course we'll have to get rid of encryption as you might be using it to get laid.
Pretty quick marriage will come back to life and people will stay married no matter how much suffering it entails.
That's true of most of Central and South America as well as 3rd world countries every where. Is the average Haitian better off then the average Cuban? What about Dubai, where the workers are dieing like flies? Saudi Arabia, where woman aren't even allowed to drive, little well have any other civil rights, and the imported labour is also treated like shit.
There's a lot of shithole countries, many where the poor are treated a lot worse then Cuba. This includes pre-Castro Cuba, which I understand had death squads, leaders who lived like Kings while their subjects were forced to whore themselves out for a piece of bread.
The real question is how does Cuba compare to other similar countries. Is the average Haitian better off then the average Cuban? Does the average Cuban have to worry about death squads like much of Latin America? Do Cubans worry about getting beheaded for expressing themselves like many Mexicans do? How many children are forced to go bare footed due to not being able to afford shoes? How's the crime rate?
Is the average Cuban better off then the average Cuban in 1958?
Yes, Putin is such an improvement.
One Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)
Two Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)
'Tis both.
You do know that GMO is a tool and like all tools, can be used for good and bad. Just because so far it has been used for good does not mean that it'll always be used the same way.
We live in a capitalist society and history has shown that given the chance, the capitalist will choose profit, even if it means taking shortcuts that are harmful. Hide the use of the tool and possibly the businesses will start taking shortcuts on testing, with a "good enough, lets ship" attitude that seems to eventually infect so many businesses.
So just because so far GMO has been used responsibly, does not mean it will always be used responsibly as it just takes one ex-tobacco CEO to be in charge of a GMO product line.
Of course most people have to slow down. Timed traffic lights are the perfect example of using a carrot to enforce the speed limit. Speed and all your lights are red. Go the speed limit and all your lights are green.
Won't work in corrupt jurisdictions as they depend on the stick to enforce speed limits and raise revenue with safety an excuse.
Seems that they used to be common around here, drive for miles in town with no red lights. Now I think they time it for traffic management/calming as every light seems to be red, which just leads to frustration rather then safety.
Before the industrial revolution, employment was close to a 100%, now it is probably less then 50%. We have whole classes of people who have left the workforce. The 5-25 year olds by themselves make up a good chunk of the population. The stay at home Moms who look after the unemployed young. The old who used to decently drop dead when they seized to be productive. The disabled population has grown a lot as well. The people the government counts as unemployed.
Then there are all the slackers who don't even put in 66 hours a week.
We're a long ways from full employment.
Of course we're also rich enough that we can afford to remove many groups from the employable and could remove even more, but to pretend that we haven't removed close to a majority of people from the employable list is dishonest.
History has many cases of the rich killing off their slaves, it's very common as the rich are usually very paranoid about the slaves revolting. The worst that usually happens is that the rich have some lean times, where lean means having to cut back on their yacht purchases and such.
Occasionally the not quite as rich team up with the poor and do kill off the rich, which usually leads to the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" situation. And of course it is the poor that are volunteered to be cannon fodder
The peasant revolts are a bad example unless you're trying to show that revolting against a well armed ruthless nobility is useless as not one of the peasant revolts succeeded.
That's only partially true. During the times of the Luddites, it took 3 generations (70 odd years) for employment to increase to close to full, after a significant proportion of the population was shipped of to the new world.
Around the turn of the 20th century a move was made to reduce the number of people in the workforce due to automation. Woman were turned into homemakers and children were taken out of the workforce, as well as limits being put on the hours worked by everyone else.
The trend of taking children out of the workforce continues with the length of time that people stay in school continuing to increase. My parents get by fine with about a 8th grade education. My brother graduated out of grade 10 to go to technical school and become a well paid glazier. Now kids are expected to spend at least 4 years in collage/university.
Things were also pretty horrible for the poor in 18th century England and only the large amount of land available in the New World etc made things bearable in the colonies and the new nation of the USA.
They certainly knew how to be specific if they wanted to be. They actually defined the crime of treason in the document, down to the number of eyewitnesses that were required.
They just used the current law on treason (minus the parts about fucking the queen etc). Can't find the exact quote right now, which was very close to Article 3 but from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...,
The simplified version, we elect the House of Commons, the part of Parliament with most of the power, much like you elect the House of Representatives. Whichever party can get the confidence of Parliament, basically enough votes to pass a budget, forms the government.
Laws are passed by Parliament, much the same as Congress, but whichever party forms the government appoints the Prime Minister and cabinet, who can pass orders in council, which are similar to Presidential executive orders to run things.
The government is responsible to Parliament, who are responsible to the people.
Due to party discipline, votes in Parliament are almost always along party lines, which with a majority, translates into a defacto dictatorship until the next election as the party will almost always support the PM, who is the leader of the party. The party can decide to change leaders, which means a different PM but it hardly ever happens here. Australia did do this recently.
If no party has a clear majority, then the parties have to work together and compromise to get a budget passed and usually the government is formed by the party with the most seats. If no party can pass a budget, Parliament gets dissolved and a new election is called, and usually the voters aren't happy and will punish whichever party wouldn't compromise.
In Canada, the government can just sign a treaty though sometimes they're polite and ask Parliament to ratify it. Parliament still needs to pass any laws that go with the treaty.
It doesn't really matter though as our new government is on record of being in favour of it and all free trade and the public consultations they've promised can't do anything anyways. And of course the government has a majority in Parliament, with the party always voting as a block and the opposition also in favour so only the socialists are against it.
Our only hope is that the Americans reject it and that is so unlikely...
There are ways to infer wild fires. Certain Pines need fire to open their cones and allow the seeds to germinate. Other types of trees such as Douglas Fir need the openness that fire brings to grow as they can't handle shade. Then there are the wounds that fire cause, that 2,000 year old Red Cedar shows the scars of each fire that it survived, with growth rings to date the scars, same with the dead one in the peat bog.
Then there are the layers of ash in the soil, not as accurate, still evidence
The history is there if someone can read it.
Yes, and Australia also has claims to be the 51st state.
Canada is kinda special, the Americans in their first Constitution included a clause that the Canadian provinces automatically got Statehood just for the asking. We border them, have gone to war a few times (last time the only casualty was a pig and the higher ups weren't happy that most of the fighting happened on sports field and the pub/tavern, see Pig War). Modern Canada was actually formed to avoid becoming American States just after their civil war.
While Canadians generally define ourselves as not American, there is a sizable minority who actually like America (vs Americans who are generally nice people) and to Americans, we were the natural way to continue expanding, being more culturally similar then any other country.
And of course we'd be States 51-61
Actually he said,
Which sounds like saying if they enter legally, they can bust you for whatever they stumble across.
I think the vampire rules apply here as well, not sure how I feel about it as it's a classic case of conflicting rights and I can see both sides.
Is your 4th amendment really that weak? Up here (BC) the cops would still have to go and get a search warrant to search for pot plants.
There was a case recently where the cops, with a search warrant (not for marijuana plants) found a grow-op while searching a house, left (keeping the house surrounded) and got another search warrant for the plants before returning and searching the house again. I'd assume it would be similar in those cases when they can enter a house without a warrant. (basically imminent danger to someone)
Our rules on "fruit of the poisoned tree" aren't even as strict as yours.
Not an American or a lawyer but in a similar common law jurisdiction. One example is the case of an accident with unconscious driver where the police think alcohol was a factor. They can phone a Judge, swear they think alcohol was involved, get a search warrant and ask a Doctor or medical technician to remove blood. The Doctor or medical technician is free to say yes or no.
So with a warrant, they can ask but not force. They also have to take 2 blood samples and make one available to the defense for independent testing.
Around here as often as not the Doctors do say no as it usually means too much court time as witnesses.
It doesn't work that way, especially if one country is much bigger then the other. Look at the free trade agreements between Canada and the US, 2 first world countries.
In theory tariffs are removed, American Congress person (speaking for industry) claims that Canada subsidizes softwood and implements tariffs, various international tribunals, courts etc agree that Canada is not subsidizing softwood, tariffs remain. America being 10x bigger has that much power as they are not as dependent on Canadian goods as Canada is on selling to America. Eventually America agrees to knock of a percentage of their tariffs, Canada is happy to get anything.
Yesterday our PM and your President agree to redo the deal when it is really Congress that sets the terms, lather and repeat.
As an aside, why does everyone think the President is all powerful?
That's the theory, in practice it seems that whoever repeats something the loudest is believed. Unluckily there doesn't seem to be a better system as even the educated would rather believe what agrees with their personal philosophy rather then what is actually true.