I don't think you understand what "a priori" means in the theory of knowledge. And it looks as if you don't understand how science works, either. Try reading some Kant.
Punctuation is applied within the quotation marks, so this should be written as "then."
In US English, true. But in British English the sentence was correctly punctuated as it stood, and putting the stop inside the quotes would be seen as a blunder (or resented as a creeping Americanism).
It's not by definition the fastest information can travel. It's the fastest according to our current understanding, which might be wrong.. The OP confused a priori with a posteriori truth -- logical certainty with scientific confidence.
Susan Pinker's The Sexual Parodox refers to the observation that as women's rights improve the number of women in traditionally men's professions keeps rising and then goes into reverse, settling at a lower level than the peak (but far higher than in the society with poor women's rights). The effect seems to be tat a desire for "equality" means that women are pushed into jobs they don't want to do because they're assumed to be socialised to the point of being incapable of deciding for themselves (what Pinker calls the "infantilisation of women"). Eventually, women get enough liberty to resist that.
So both sides have a measure of truth. Those concerned for women's rights are correct that there can be social factors excluding women from certain professions, but the opponents are right that the search for numerical equality can lead to an overshoot and press individual women into unsuitable jobs. The challenge is to find out which side of that line we're on.
Well, if it automatically sent a rude message to anybody who posted bitstrips and then automatically blocked them, it would save me some work. And there'd be no back and forth.
the US governement is obsessed with rule of law ? are you kitting me !?!
Sure the US Government is obsessed with rule of law. Like most governments in most places and at all times (since "rule of law" took hold), it's obsessed with finding ways to get away with circumventing it.
Exactly. I clicked through a few of the questions, and it was one of the few online contexts I can think of where pretending to be a teenage female gaming geek wouldn't get me into trouble.
That will almost certainly be a defense if it comes up in court: that the defendants never really believed this was a real person, and knew all along they were offering money for harmless "virtual stripping" of a computer simulation.
In the UK, that "virtual stripping" would be illegal.
As it was reported in the UK, there is nothing that these people can be charged with on the basis of their interactions with the software, but the police will be looking closely at those people. It probably means they will be considered to have reasonable grounds to go rooting around their hard drives and so on.
At least the story seems to have been reported accurately on slashdot. The UK media represented everybody who interacted with the software as being a pedophile, with the charity only being able to identify about 1000. Great. So now if a 10-year-old asks for help, anybody who tries to help must be evil. Oh well, so long H. sapiens, we've had a good run...
"Evidence" is anything that supports a premise. An IP address or profile is "evidence" as is an eye witness and DNA evidence.
Yes and no. You've listed 3 types of evidence with varying degree's of accuracy.
I suspect that was the OP's point. "Evidence" does not mean "proof". A profile is evidence -- very weak evidence, sure, a long way from proof, but it's still evidence.
Ok, I am not a lawyer, and I am not a Canadian, but as far as I can see there are a few different questions:
Who (if anyone) has criminal liability
Who can get sued?
Who can get successfully sued? And
Do you have a moral obligation independent of the law?
Where I am (the UK) criminal liability is likely to lie with the company that developed the product (or that sold it, if it was misrepresented). If they are selling safety-significant software, they should have appropriate processes in place to ensure the software is of sufficient quality and to ensure that developers are working to those processes,
For "Who can get sued", the answer is "almost anybody", and it can be financially ruining, but as far as I can see a customer who suffers harm is in the first instance likely to go after the company that sold the app and the company that developed the app -- the company would have trouble passing the responsibility down to the developer if they did not have such processes and if they did not make them sufficiently known to the developer. That might not stop them trying, though, if they're desperate to pass the buck.
For "Who can get successfully sued, that depends on local legislation and how the product is represented. It's probably not you, but as I said, I am not a lawyer.
For "moral obligation" I would say that you have an obligation to raise your concerns with your management, and whatever their response to be aware of, and as far as is in your power apply, the appropriate measures that should be applied to safety significant software -- if you can get hold of a copy of IEC61508 or local standards and guidelines it would be a big help.
They've started introducing LED street lights in my UK city too, and the light they give is far better than the old sodium lights. Even if the LEDs don't last as long as claimed, I understand they only have to last a couple of years for them to have paid back the higher cost of the luminaries.
Knowledgeable in what field? The author seems to be a pilot, sure, but does that mean he or she is entirely honest and completely free from bias, especially after not having a contract renewed? KAL's safety record isn't great, but it's not as bad as that article makes out either (I don't know Asiana's safety statistics, though it seems they're not as good as KAL's), so I suspect a bit of a grudge.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you understand what "a priori" means in the theory of knowledge. And it looks as if you don't understand how science works, either. Try reading some Kant.
Punctuation is applied within the quotation marks, so this should be written as "then."
In US English, true. But in British English the sentence was correctly punctuated as it stood, and putting the stop inside the quotes would be seen as a blunder (or resented as a creeping Americanism).
It does when your wife says she's three month pregnant, and you were on a business trip three months ago.
Good job she came with me, so I didn't have to calculate the relativistic effect of only one of us making the journey.
It's not by definition the fastest information can travel. It's the fastest according to our current understanding, which might be wrong.. The OP confused a priori with a posteriori truth -- logical certainty with scientific confidence.
Susan Pinker's The Sexual Parodox refers to the observation that as women's rights improve the number of women in traditionally men's professions keeps rising and then goes into reverse, settling at a lower level than the peak (but far higher than in the society with poor women's rights). The effect seems to be tat a desire for "equality" means that women are pushed into jobs they don't want to do because they're assumed to be socialised to the point of being incapable of deciding for themselves (what Pinker calls the "infantilisation of women"). Eventually, women get enough liberty to resist that. So both sides have a measure of truth. Those concerned for women's rights are correct that there can be social factors excluding women from certain professions, but the opponents are right that the search for numerical equality can lead to an overshoot and press individual women into unsuitable jobs. The challenge is to find out which side of that line we're on.
Well, if it automatically sent a rude message to anybody who posted bitstrips and then automatically blocked them, it would save me some work. And there'd be no back and forth.
I don't want to be on a plane with someone who potentially has a history of clinical depression.
That's fine. You're welcome to stay in your bunker.
Interesting that you got on well with those with whom you shared a common [1] native language, and didn't with those you didn't, isn't it?
[1] Approximately.
the US governement is obsessed with rule of law ? are you kitting me !?!
Sure the US Government is obsessed with rule of law. Like most governments in most places and at all times (since "rule of law" took hold), it's obsessed with finding ways to get away with circumventing it.
Well, wouldn't want to make the condition worse, after all,,,
Basically, the lesson they should have learned from Fukushima is not to build reactors in areas prone to tsunamis.
Exactly. I clicked through a few of the questions, and it was one of the few online contexts I can think of where pretending to be a teenage female gaming geek wouldn't get me into trouble.
That will almost certainly be a defense if it comes up in court: that the defendants never really believed this was a real person, and knew all along they were offering money for harmless "virtual stripping" of a computer simulation.
In the UK, that "virtual stripping" would be illegal.
As it was reported in the UK, there is nothing that these people can be charged with on the basis of their interactions with the software, but the police will be looking closely at those people. It probably means they will be considered to have reasonable grounds to go rooting around their hard drives and so on.
At least the story seems to have been reported accurately on slashdot. The UK media represented everybody who interacted with the software as being a pedophile, with the charity only being able to identify about 1000. Great. So now if a 10-year-old asks for help, anybody who tries to help must be evil. Oh well, so long H. sapiens, we've had a good run...
"Evidence" is anything that supports a premise. An IP address or profile is "evidence" as is an eye witness and DNA evidence.
Yes and no. You've listed 3 types of evidence with varying degree's of accuracy.
I suspect that was the OP's point. "Evidence" does not mean "proof". A profile is evidence -- very weak evidence, sure, a long way from proof, but it's still evidence.
Ok, I am not a lawyer, and I am not a Canadian, but as far as I can see there are a few different questions:
Where I am (the UK) criminal liability is likely to lie with the company that developed the product (or that sold it, if it was misrepresented). If they are selling safety-significant software, they should have appropriate processes in place to ensure the software is of sufficient quality and to ensure that developers are working to those processes,
For "Who can get sued", the answer is "almost anybody", and it can be financially ruining, but as far as I can see a customer who suffers harm is in the first instance likely to go after the company that sold the app and the company that developed the app -- the company would have trouble passing the responsibility down to the developer if they did not have such processes and if they did not make them sufficiently known to the developer. That might not stop them trying, though, if they're desperate to pass the buck.
For "Who can get successfully sued, that depends on local legislation and how the product is represented. It's probably not you, but as I said, I am not a lawyer.
For "moral obligation" I would say that you have an obligation to raise your concerns with your management, and whatever their response to be aware of, and as far as is in your power apply, the appropriate measures that should be applied to safety significant software -- if you can get hold of a copy of IEC61508 or local standards and guidelines it would be a big help.
They've started introducing LED street lights in my UK city too, and the light they give is far better than the old sodium lights. Even if the LEDs don't last as long as claimed, I understand they only have to last a couple of years for them to have paid back the higher cost of the luminaries.
Yes, well, if you're saying they just processed the plastic, the same could be said of the USA.
China isn't really noted for its oil reserves, so my guess is that the plastic did not come from there.
So how might this have played out in the USA? The only thing I can see that might be different is his being released.
An abuse of the law has been brought to light and now those responsible need to simply say "terrorism" and the government will roll over.
FTFY.
That, or somebody forgot to put the cheese sauce on the broccoli.
Why did I have to spend so much time in elementary school learning about The Constitution, when they were just going to deprecate it later on?
Because they didn't expect you to find out.
Knowledgeable in what field? The author seems to be a pilot, sure, but does that mean he or she is entirely honest and completely free from bias, especially after not having a contract renewed? KAL's safety record isn't great, but it's not as bad as that article makes out either (I don't know Asiana's safety statistics, though it seems they're not as good as KAL's), so I suspect a bit of a grudge.
The advertisers, as usual.