You are not on someone 'else's' property. You are on a business's property, and a business does not have the same rights that people do.
Businesses certainly have the right to decide who belongs on their property, and they have the right to remove you for any reason, or to exclude you in the first place. And, BTW, you are on someone else's property. Either a real person who owns the store, or a corperation, which is a fictional person. Someone owns all business property, obviously.
There have been various civil rights statures enacted, which disallows discrimination based on certain, listed traits. These statures overrule the rights of the owners to refuse service to you if they are doing it for certain reasons.
But that's the only thing they disallow. They can refuse to serve you because you're wearing a bright pink shirt and they only serve people wearing winter colors. It's perfectly legal, because you do not have any right to not be discriminated against because of clothing under the civil rights laws.
Police don't just do what the law says - a lot of times they do what the law means. For instance, there is no way in the world that the police would remove someone from a store just because they're black - if they did, not only would the person sue the store, they'd sue the police department too (and they'd win, as well).
You are simply wrong here, 100%. The police enforce trespassing laws. If a judge says that the person has the right to be there, then the police will enforce that, but they will not do it without a court order, because, until then, they cannot make a legal decision that this falls under any civil rights laws. (Now, a judge may tell them to allow any black person, for example, to get service there.)
Now, they'd probably inform the owner that he's facing a possible lawsuit by the person he's trying to remove, but if the owner insisted and the person refused to move, they'd eventually have no choice but to arrest him. That's called 'trespassing', and that's how it works, if you refuse to leave after you are ordered to do so, it is a crime, unless you've been granted some sort of explict right to be there by the courts. (As an aside, note you can get these rights by other laws, too, like search warrants and repo men. There are plenty of laws under which a judge can allow you to 'trespass'.)
I'm actually talking from personal experience here, though. Police do make moral judgements - they're people. Go ask a store owner to call a cop to get some guy to leave who's not doing anything bad. The cop will come and say "I'm sorry, if he's not doing anything illegal, I can't ask him to leave."
I'm willing to bet that the person they could not get to leave was, in fact, hanging around outside the store. Standing around on someone else's property after you have been asked to leave is the very defination of trespassing, and, yes, the police will arrest you. (Well, first they'll ask you to leave peaceably, but if you continue to refuse, they will arrest you.)
Seriously, it's trespassing. I can't emphasize this enough. You can't stand around on any private property if you've been asked to leave, it doesn't matter if they 'don't have a good reason'.
See my other post for my opinions on dress codes. Dress codes are even worse discrimination than anything else, because it's not even done in the name of safety or security - it's just done in the name of social discrimination. The grocery store thing I've touched on about ten times already in ten different posts - health concerns are the one place where I can understand restricting civil liberties, because the public health risk is just too great.
Civil liberties? Like the right to use your property how you wish? Oh, wait, you mean those other civil liberties, the ones that let you stand around on other people's property, even when they ask you to leave. I got confused there.
I can refuse anyone access to my property for any reason. My ability to do that does not violate your 'civil liberties' and you just look silly when you say it does. (Unless, of course, my property totally surrounds yours, and, surprise surprise, you can get an exception to trespassing based on that.)
I presume you're going to give my free rides in your car from now on, because you've done it for other people before. What do you mean, you won't do that? I live too far away, and I'm not a friend of yours? Why, that's discrimination, you just admitted it! You discriminated against me based on location and level of intimacy. I'm going to court right now to file a lawsuit, and force you to drive to Georgia every day to give me a lift.
You see how insane that is? You can't just make people treat you how you want to be treated, they have rights too. It's their property, they can do what they want, barring laws banning said behavior.
And you're wrong about one thing - you said that "there are quite a few places that do that [disallowing customers based on appearance] and no one cares" - I do. That's one, and it's more than no one. And I think you'll find that there are a hell of a lot more people than just me who think that way.
Tell me something: Does a local resteraunt have the right to ask you to leave if you start a food fight? Let's assume it's only between consenting parties so you aren't charged with assault, and it's not going on the floor and making a mess. Do they have the right to make you leave if you eat by placing your plate on the floor and eating it without your hands? What if you eat by first smearing it though your hair?
What if, instead of eating, you leap around on top of the tables screaming?
Are you honestly trying to claim that businesses have no right to set a standard of behavior for people within? Or are you claiming that this right stops short of 'You must wearing clothing of type X.'?
If you want to protest outside of a place because they won't let you in without a tie, go right ahead, that's your right to do so. But the people who do eat there already know this rule and usually like it, and the people that don't can't hurt the place anyway. (As an aside, those rules are usually complete formalities now. You can walk in with a t-shirt and shorts and they'll hand you a clip-on tie.)
And the same for the bookbag. Standing up to people, and making them either look like fascists for having you arrested or letting you in with your bag, is a good plan, and it works. If you're daring, you can try the same thing on a place that requires a tie. But, watch out, they certainly can have you arrested. They'll look like complete asshole, but they can do it.
I didn't say the velocity was more than c, I said they travelled a distance in an amount of time that was greater than it could have been if their velocity was c. And, yes, I am aware that is the defination of velocity. (Erm, speed. Whatever.)
Think about it. If you measure their momentum exactly (easy enough to do, you just figure out their frequency, you can do it with a prism), you've lost their position. If you've lost their position, then there is the chance that, when you measure it again, you'll end up with it being a slightly farther than it should be forward along its tragectory.
I don't know where you're getting 'the police would side with him'. The police are there to enforce laws. You are on someone else's property, and they can make you leave. There is no stature under which you can claim you have the right to be there, and the police would have no choice but to arrest you for trespassing and remove by force, off to prison. Police enforce the law, they don't make moral judgements and say 'Sure, he can trespass, the owner is being too much a hardass.'. (In fact, the police even will remove you if you are black and the owner explictly has a sign saying that black people are not welcome. Of course, you can then sue for access, and quite a lot of money, but even civil right statures don't grant you the right to do anything on their property until the issue is decided.)
And I didn't say it was okay, in fact, I said what you can do if such a store sets up a policy like that: You can set up a picket line outside and urge people to boycott them. I might even join you. You don't have any right to enter their store, though.
As for disallowing customers based on appearance, there are quite a few places that do that and no one cares. I'm sure you have a resturant nearby that makes you wear a tie. Almost every grocery store makes you wear a shirt, even though there's really no law under which they could get in trouble if they didn't make you do so. (Shoes, yes, shirt, no.)
It's not asking that much that you spend an extra half second after clicking on a link to make sure it did what you expected.
And this is where the whole thing falls apart. I don't mind spending half a second. However, as the title say, 'And for those still on dialup'. I do mind clicking a 'download' link that's a really a redirect, and having to wait 20 seconds over a crap modem for it to redirect, 5 seconds because they inexplicably put in a 5 second delay on the redirect, then another 20 seconds for the file to start downloading, then half a second to rename it.
And I don't really know what you mean by 'don't do what I didn't tell you to do'. You did tell it to download the file. It should keep doing so, to wherever it downloads files by default, until you tell it where else to put it.
If you want to make it an option, fine, than people with T1s with small hard drives can turn it off. But those people who have several gigs free and connections that don't get higher than 28kps can turn it on.
And I have to make the assertation that the 'I clicked on the link and it filled up a 100 meg partition before it could be renamed' camp should just, frankly, shut up, as those people can just download the file again, probably in less time then the first connection finished connecting for those of us out where they don't have DSL or cable modems yet, and the phone lines are apparently strung though lakes for all the quality we get.
That's because there are specific laws about that, under various civil rights statures. You can't be denied anything because of your gender, race, religion (except for religious organizations, they can deny people things based on religion), handicaps, and a few other things I can't think of right now. And, no, age is not one of these things. (Though there are some age specific rules, they usually apply to firing older people, not young people.)
It's perfectly legal to forbid everyone with long hair entrance to a store, everyone with bookbags, everyone with a Southpark shirt on, everyone wearing clothing, etc. It's only things that explictly forbidden by law that they can't do.
That said, it's perfectly legal to boycott and picket the store if they do so.
And while this guy thinks he's clever by pointing out that he paid 22,000 to go to the school, I have to point out that a) College students frequently run out of money, and b) They didn't card him in the first place, for all they know he just walked in off the street, and wasn't a student at the school.
Saying that they should just trust him because of who he is is somewhat silly when they'd never seen him before.
Why the hell would anyone want that 'feature'? I want my downlaods to start as soon as possible, not click a link that loads a redir page, walk away, and come back five minutes later to find my computer has been sitting there like a moron.
You can argue the browser shouldn't stick it anywhere accessible until you name it, and that's fine, but saying it shouldn't start the download means I don't want you anywhere near my web browser, as your pointless paranoia is making it suck. If you haven't named it yet, it should download it to DOWE392R.TMP, not sit there like a gap-jawwed idiot waiting for you to name it.
True, and false. All photons, by defination, travel at C. However, nothing in quantum physics does anything 'by defination'. All photons have a velocity of C, if you measure them at the start and the end of a trip. However, that's completely impossible due to the Uncertainity Principle.
In the 'real world', when you measure the location of a photon, there is a slight chance it will have gotten where it is at a velocity that exceeded C, and a slight chance that it will have been lower than C, because all particles, including photons, are 'smeared' out in space, including the direction they're travelling in, and thus, when you measure them, you get a finite chance of measuring them going faster or slower than 'light'.
When you measure the position of the leading edge of a light wave, you can discover that it's gone 'too far' for the amount of time it's been travelling. And hence some photons are travelling faster than light, as measuring the position of the light way involves decoherent some photons, ones that have 'magically' travelled at 1.000001C, along with some that have magically travelled at.99999C.
And, yes, I know that doesn't make any sense. But I don't make the rules.
Re:At least the test is easy :)
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
Say what you want about those movies, but Bill and Ted were the smartest time travellers ever.
Watch Back to the Future. I wanted to slap Marty so many time because he's a complete idiot when it comes to time travel, in the first movie, at least. In the second movie he at least understands the danger created when he causes Biff to lay in wait for his past self. But in the third movie he's back to not understanding that the bridge will be there in the future.
Compare this to Bill and Ted, who screw up, but only with the non-obvious rules of their time machine, like the fact that it brings you to consectutive times in the present, so you don't run into yourself, but you have to remember to change days manually. And they instantly realize they literally have all the time in the world, because they can prepare their presentatation after their presentation.
Bill and Ted effortlessly grasped something quite that the people who wrote Back to the Future missed.
Example: In Back to the Future III, why didn't they take the first time machine, hidden in a cave, and simply siphon off some gas from it for the second one, instead of trying to use whiskey? No one would miss two gallons, considering it was all going to pour out on the ground anyway. Thirty minutes of welding and they're back in the future.
Granted, they could have had some throwaway line about how Doc drained all the gas from it to keep it from screwing up the engine, but I'm betting the writers simply forgot they had a supply of gas not five miles away.
Re:He really isn't a nut
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
Dude, that's what everyone is talking about, using relativity to travel though time. You can travel into the past with relativity also, you just need to stick one end of a wormhole on the ship instead of you than walk though it when it gets back. If the clock on the ship experienced 2 months while the world experienced 100 years, you'll exit the other end 99 years and 10 months in the past. (Instead of hanging around on earth for 100 years, you may want to live on the ship for 2 months.)
Though hopefully you can do it easier with this guy's setup of a fake black hole. Wormholes are a bitch to maintain.
Re:Flip the perspective
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
And if you moved the rest of the universe instead of the ship, the rest of the universe would age slower.
But you're fooling yourself if you think General Relativity can't tell acceleration from non-acceleration. It can't tell acceleration from gravity, and it can't tell non-movement from movement, but it sure as hell can tell acceleration from non-acceleration., the same way it can tell gravity from non-gravity.
Standing in a massive gravity well will make you younger than someone who isn't. Massive acceleration produces the exact same effects.
Now you wait until the last minute again and chuck both balls back through the time machine...
How the hell do you wait for it again? You weren't the one who travelled though time, the ball did. You only live that minute once. You can't do things 'again', or 'the second time'.
And there's no problem at all, because, in the end, you didn't create any balls at all. In fact, you lost one somewhere.
Re:The best he can build is a disintegration chamb
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
Wow, your phone can call other dimensions?;)
Re:Proof time travel is impossible
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
If you are a time travel, it should be easy enough for you to steal my user number, number 10147.
No, that's not a joke, at any point in time, some photons in a beam of light will have moved slightly faster than C. And some will have moved slower.
Light only averages C.
Re:laws for time travellers? who cares?
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
And five minutes before we turn the machine on to dump all our nuclear waste five minutes into the past, when they will end up in an alternate dimension, some complete asshole in another dimension dumps a ton of nuclear waste on us.;)
Re:He's either a fruit that's a little nutty...
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
Of course, once you subscribe to that theory, you have to admit that, every second, a collection of subatomic particles organizes themself out of chaos and simply thinks they're a time traveller.
Which is why I refuse to buy the multi-world inteperetation of QM. It's not just all those billions and billions of likely interactions, it also logically branches for those infinites of extremely unlikely interactions, including ones where the earth spontaniously becomes the center of the universe and inhabited by giant ants, and monkeys really do fly out of my butt.
Or ones where, although time travel is actually 'impossible', we manage to build devices out of tree stumps, duct tape, and wax paper that, though sheer chance, work exactly like time machines every time we use them, where we disappear from the universe and a collection of subatomic particles at the time we tried to travel to arrange themselves into something that was identical to our state when we pushed the button.
That's so fucking unlikely it sounds silly, but people don't realize how big infinity really is.;)
Why would you be able to do that? Maybe the patricidal idiots step into the time machine and simply never appear at the other end, because they would have caused a paradox if they had.
There is no way for anything in this universe to be random (causing something to by dynamic... to have multiple possible outcomes). Subatomic particles don't just appear and dissappear... that would go against the law of conservation of energy. Something would have to CAUSE them to appear somewhere (if that even happens)...
And 80 years of quantum physics pass yet another person by. Whoosh!
Re:Completely Explainable...
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
And who made you the expert on which timeline this is?;)
Slashdot Mirror
Businesses certainly have the right to decide who belongs on their property, and they have the right to remove you for any reason, or to exclude you in the first place. And, BTW, you are on someone else's property. Either a real person who owns the store, or a corperation, which is a fictional person. Someone owns all business property, obviously.
There have been various civil rights statures enacted, which disallows discrimination based on certain, listed traits. These statures overrule the rights of the owners to refuse service to you if they are doing it for certain reasons.
But that's the only thing they disallow. They can refuse to serve you because you're wearing a bright pink shirt and they only serve people wearing winter colors. It's perfectly legal, because you do not have any right to not be discriminated against because of clothing under the civil rights laws.
Police don't just do what the law says - a lot of times they do what the law means. For instance, there is no way in the world that the police would remove someone from a store just because they're black - if they did, not only would the person sue the store, they'd sue the police department too (and they'd win, as well).
You are simply wrong here, 100%. The police enforce trespassing laws. If a judge says that the person has the right to be there, then the police will enforce that, but they will not do it without a court order, because, until then, they cannot make a legal decision that this falls under any civil rights laws. (Now, a judge may tell them to allow any black person, for example, to get service there.)
Now, they'd probably inform the owner that he's facing a possible lawsuit by the person he's trying to remove, but if the owner insisted and the person refused to move, they'd eventually have no choice but to arrest him. That's called 'trespassing', and that's how it works, if you refuse to leave after you are ordered to do so, it is a crime, unless you've been granted some sort of explict right to be there by the courts. (As an aside, note you can get these rights by other laws, too, like search warrants and repo men. There are plenty of laws under which a judge can allow you to 'trespass'.)
I'm actually talking from personal experience here, though. Police do make moral judgements - they're people. Go ask a store owner to call a cop to get some guy to leave who's not doing anything bad. The cop will come and say "I'm sorry, if he's not doing anything illegal, I can't ask him to leave."
I'm willing to bet that the person they could not get to leave was, in fact, hanging around outside the store. Standing around on someone else's property after you have been asked to leave is the very defination of trespassing, and, yes, the police will arrest you. (Well, first they'll ask you to leave peaceably, but if you continue to refuse, they will arrest you.)
Seriously, it's trespassing. I can't emphasize this enough. You can't stand around on any private property if you've been asked to leave, it doesn't matter if they 'don't have a good reason'.
See my other post for my opinions on dress codes. Dress codes are even worse discrimination than anything else, because it's not even done in the name of safety or security - it's just done in the name of social discrimination. The grocery store thing I've touched on about ten times already in ten different posts - health concerns are the one place where I can understand restricting civil liberties, because the public health risk is just too great.
Civil liberties? Like the right to use your property how you wish? Oh, wait, you mean those other civil liberties, the ones that let you stand around on other people's property, even when they ask you to leave. I got confused there.
I can refuse anyone access to my property for any reason. My ability to do that does not violate your 'civil liberties' and you just look silly when you say it does. (Unless, of course, my property totally surrounds yours, and, surprise surprise, you can get an exception to trespassing based on that.)
I presume you're going to give my free rides in your car from now on, because you've done it for other people before. What do you mean, you won't do that? I live too far away, and I'm not a friend of yours? Why, that's discrimination, you just admitted it! You discriminated against me based on location and level of intimacy. I'm going to court right now to file a lawsuit, and force you to drive to Georgia every day to give me a lift.
You see how insane that is? You can't just make people treat you how you want to be treated, they have rights too. It's their property, they can do what they want, barring laws banning said behavior.
And you're wrong about one thing - you said that "there are quite a few places that do that [disallowing customers based on appearance] and no one cares" - I do. That's one, and it's more than no one. And I think you'll find that there are a hell of a lot more people than just me who think that way.
Tell me something: Does a local resteraunt have the right to ask you to leave if you start a food fight? Let's assume it's only between consenting parties so you aren't charged with assault, and it's not going on the floor and making a mess. Do they have the right to make you leave if you eat by placing your plate on the floor and eating it without your hands? What if you eat by first smearing it though your hair?
What if, instead of eating, you leap around on top of the tables screaming?
Are you honestly trying to claim that businesses have no right to set a standard of behavior for people within? Or are you claiming that this right stops short of 'You must wearing clothing of type X.'?
If you want to protest outside of a place because they won't let you in without a tie, go right ahead, that's your right to do so. But the people who do eat there already know this rule and usually like it, and the people that don't can't hurt the place anyway. (As an aside, those rules are usually complete formalities now. You can walk in with a t-shirt and shorts and they'll hand you a clip-on tie.)
And the same for the bookbag. Standing up to people, and making them either look like fascists for having you arrested or letting you in with your bag, is a good plan, and it works. If you're daring, you can try the same thing on a place that requires a tie. But, watch out, they certainly can have you arrested. They'll look like complete asshole, but they can do it.
Yes, the US government has no right to pass a law saying you cannot shoplift. Only states can do that.
Think about it. If you measure their momentum exactly (easy enough to do, you just figure out their frequency, you can do it with a prism), you've lost their position. If you've lost their position, then there is the chance that, when you measure it again, you'll end up with it being a slightly farther than it should be forward along its tragectory.
And I didn't say it was okay, in fact, I said what you can do if such a store sets up a policy like that: You can set up a picket line outside and urge people to boycott them. I might even join you. You don't have any right to enter their store, though.
As for disallowing customers based on appearance, there are quite a few places that do that and no one cares. I'm sure you have a resturant nearby that makes you wear a tie. Almost every grocery store makes you wear a shirt, even though there's really no law under which they could get in trouble if they didn't make you do so. (Shoes, yes, shirt, no.)
No, there is not. It's just that simple. Things happen literally for no reason whatsoever, at the subatomic level.
And this is where the whole thing falls apart. I don't mind spending half a second. However, as the title say, 'And for those still on dialup'. I do mind clicking a 'download' link that's a really a redirect, and having to wait 20 seconds over a crap modem for it to redirect, 5 seconds because they inexplicably put in a 5 second delay on the redirect, then another 20 seconds for the file to start downloading, then half a second to rename it.
And I don't really know what you mean by 'don't do what I didn't tell you to do'. You did tell it to download the file. It should keep doing so, to wherever it downloads files by default, until you tell it where else to put it.
If you want to make it an option, fine, than people with T1s with small hard drives can turn it off. But those people who have several gigs free and connections that don't get higher than 28kps can turn it on.
And I have to make the assertation that the 'I clicked on the link and it filled up a 100 meg partition before it could be renamed' camp should just, frankly, shut up, as those people can just download the file again, probably in less time then the first connection finished connecting for those of us out where they don't have DSL or cable modems yet, and the phone lines are apparently strung though lakes for all the quality we get.
It's perfectly legal to forbid everyone with long hair entrance to a store, everyone with bookbags, everyone with a Southpark shirt on, everyone wearing clothing, etc. It's only things that explictly forbidden by law that they can't do.
That said, it's perfectly legal to boycott and picket the store if they do so.
And while this guy thinks he's clever by pointing out that he paid 22,000 to go to the school, I have to point out that a) College students frequently run out of money, and b) They didn't card him in the first place, for all they know he just walked in off the street, and wasn't a student at the school.
Saying that they should just trust him because of who he is is somewhat silly when they'd never seen him before.
You can argue the browser shouldn't stick it anywhere accessible until you name it, and that's fine, but saying it shouldn't start the download means I don't want you anywhere near my web browser, as your pointless paranoia is making it suck. If you haven't named it yet, it should download it to DOWE392R.TMP, not sit there like a gap-jawwed idiot waiting for you to name it.
In the 'real world', when you measure the location of a photon, there is a slight chance it will have gotten where it is at a velocity that exceeded C, and a slight chance that it will have been lower than C, because all particles, including photons, are 'smeared' out in space, including the direction they're travelling in, and thus, when you measure them, you get a finite chance of measuring them going faster or slower than 'light'.
When you measure the position of the leading edge of a light wave, you can discover that it's gone 'too far' for the amount of time it's been travelling. And hence some photons are travelling faster than light, as measuring the position of the light way involves decoherent some photons, ones that have 'magically' travelled at 1.000001C, along with some that have magically travelled at .99999C.
And, yes, I know that doesn't make any sense. But I don't make the rules.
Watch Back to the Future. I wanted to slap Marty so many time because he's a complete idiot when it comes to time travel, in the first movie, at least. In the second movie he at least understands the danger created when he causes Biff to lay in wait for his past self. But in the third movie he's back to not understanding that the bridge will be there in the future.
Compare this to Bill and Ted, who screw up, but only with the non-obvious rules of their time machine, like the fact that it brings you to consectutive times in the present, so you don't run into yourself, but you have to remember to change days manually. And they instantly realize they literally have all the time in the world, because they can prepare their presentatation after their presentation.
Bill and Ted effortlessly grasped something quite that the people who wrote Back to the Future missed.
Example: In Back to the Future III, why didn't they take the first time machine, hidden in a cave, and simply siphon off some gas from it for the second one, instead of trying to use whiskey? No one would miss two gallons, considering it was all going to pour out on the ground anyway. Thirty minutes of welding and they're back in the future.
Granted, they could have had some throwaway line about how Doc drained all the gas from it to keep it from screwing up the engine, but I'm betting the writers simply forgot they had a supply of gas not five miles away.
Though hopefully you can do it easier with this guy's setup of a fake black hole. Wormholes are a bitch to maintain.
But you're fooling yourself if you think General Relativity can't tell acceleration from non-acceleration. It can't tell acceleration from gravity, and it can't tell non-movement from movement, but it sure as hell can tell acceleration from non-acceleration., the same way it can tell gravity from non-gravity.
Standing in a massive gravity well will make you younger than someone who isn't. Massive acceleration produces the exact same effects.
How the hell do you wait for it again? You weren't the one who travelled though time, the ball did. You only live that minute once. You can't do things 'again', or 'the second time'.
And there's no problem at all, because, in the end, you didn't create any balls at all. In fact, you lost one somewhere.
Wow, your phone can call other dimensions? ;)
If you are a time travel, it should be easy enough for you to steal my user number, number 10147.
You need to check your clock again, you're almost 10 hours in the past.
Why, what did you think they were?
I believe it's called 'exotic matter'. The defining property is that it has negative mass.
It is very relevant to a time travel discussion, as it is about the only way to keep open a stable wormhole.
No, that's not a joke, at any point in time, some photons in a beam of light will have moved slightly faster than C. And some will have moved slower.
Light only averages C.
And five minutes before we turn the machine on to dump all our nuclear waste five minutes into the past, when they will end up in an alternate dimension, some complete asshole in another dimension dumps a ton of nuclear waste on us. ;)
Which is why I refuse to buy the multi-world inteperetation of QM. It's not just all those billions and billions of likely interactions, it also logically branches for those infinites of extremely unlikely interactions, including ones where the earth spontaniously becomes the center of the universe and inhabited by giant ants, and monkeys really do fly out of my butt.
Or ones where, although time travel is actually 'impossible', we manage to build devices out of tree stumps, duct tape, and wax paper that, though sheer chance, work exactly like time machines every time we use them, where we disappear from the universe and a collection of subatomic particles at the time we tried to travel to arrange themselves into something that was identical to our state when we pushed the button.
That's so fucking unlikely it sounds silly, but people don't realize how big infinity really is. ;)
Why would you be able to do that? Maybe the patricidal idiots step into the time machine and simply never appear at the other end, because they would have caused a paradox if they had.
Technical note: You end up in all branches, just like everyone else does.
And 80 years of quantum physics pass yet another person by. Whoosh!
And who made you the expert on which timeline this is? ;)