Ya, I am not sure about the specifics of the US but they do have more Freedoms of speech. In Canada all we have, basically is: You can say whatever you want, unless it offended someone, he charges you, and a judge finds that what you have said is unreasonably offensive. The law is worded loosely enough that anything can be considered illegal to say, if the judge finds it so.
I agree 100%. But the easiest thing for a person to say in that situation is simply the truth. Coming up with a lie is difficult and the truth has the added benefit of stopping future pain as well as current. And confessions do not have to come under the knife, so to speak; It does not have to be a moment of irrational weakness. The subject can come to the realization that overall his life will be better if he starts to cooperative between sessions.
Well it depends on the information. locations/addresses can be checked, locations and dates of attacks can be guarded (but this takes longer because you have to wait), etc. Everything that is of practical use in the real world can be verified because it exists or does not. As for confessions, there is tons of evidence that when you are looking for specific "known" information and all you want is for someone to confirm with a yes/no (where a yes means stop the torture and a no means continue until we get a yes) that you will not get the truth. When you are doing this you do not want the truth, only an excuse.
What only works in movies? Verifying a phone number/or other generic information by dialling/using it? Or you mean torture. Yes there has never been a scientific study confirming or denying its effectiveness but the entire subject matter is far to immoral to ever have one. Yes, that is a common belief, but not one grounded in any facts; People just want to believe that something this immoral would not be effective (similarly to crime does not pay). And like I said a few comments above, the idea is very simple; You pay a person to help you, particularly in this case you pay them with by stopping the pain/discomfort/psychological abuse. And we already have studies, I assume, on the effectiveness of trading goods/services between entities for the betterment of both. The idea is so simple and based in other common ideas that unless there is a lot of evidence to disprove its effectiveness then you really have to assume that it works.
Because being able to verify information is not at all the same as knowing it... For instance I might ask you for the phone number for a contacting someone. I am asking you this because I do not know it and for some reason cannot find it on my own. But I can verify the information you gave me by using it. In general you verify through a second source or even easier through using it in the real world. If a terrorist tells you under torture that their main base is at such and such a location, then you check it out and wee if it is filled with terrorists. If it turned out to be a false lead then you resume torturing.
Oh, that is a huge exaggeration. as long as the subject remains lucid, and you have some way of verifying the information, torture is a pretty simple idea. Make the subject want the torture to end more then he wants to not give up the information (it is identical to payment/bribery). Yes, we know that it can be used in stupid ways, like getting people to admit to anything, but you would hope that the FBI knows enough about the uses and weaknesses of torture to not get into trouble like that.
I think the solution to this problem is to ignore bomb threats when you have every reason to believe that they are fake. You simply cannot really catch someone if he does nothing other then writing notes and does not screw up. There are many ways you could go about informing the police/faculty of a bomb with no risk of getting caught.
"No, they can't. They MAY be allowed to in 2015, if the King keeps his promise." 2015 is the next election. No one can vote when an election is not being held.
The part where one country is not an entire continent sized region or representative of a globe spanning religion.
Also Women is Saudi Arabia can vote and run for office, historically they could not (like everywhere 100 year ago). Also there is nothing in the law about leaving the house. Particular families might practice that but you would have to look for statistics to see how prevalent, if at all, that it is. As for face coverings, yes Saudi Arabia practices that but most Arad nations outright ban the practice and the consensus is that that practice is a mistranslation and is only practiced by fanatics.
So what is that? 2/5 complete lies, and the rest exaggerations [some of them so extreme as to have no sliver of truth] (particularly if you look at them as accusations against all Arabs).
You can find crazies, fanatics, and hate filled individuals in all countries and religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church).
The news in the west is completely anti-Arab. Don't believe what the mainstream media says about them (none of it is all true, and a surprising amount is complete lies/so exaggerated that it might as well be a complete lie).
First degree murder is when someone plans in advance to murder someone. If he has a grudge against this person and lured him out to the spot he was shot, that would be 1st degree murder. Since he did not, and likely even thought he was semi justified in shooting him, 2nd degree is not even guaranteed to pass.
Well they are not telling them to find all the negative press and pretend to be a average consumer and refute it. Spreading the word is different from false and misleading advertising.
Most if not all MI clients have that, normally it is referred to as appear offline. AIM might of invented it, but any full IM client has that functionality. As for steam, the steam client as a whole is missing a huge number of common features.
What? Do you have no concept of what is going on here? Theoretically they just traded 1 billion dollars worth of useless patents that were just gathering dust for 1 billion dollars that they can use for anything. They are worth today exactly what they were worth yesterday. What they do with this influx of money will determine if they gain or lose value as a company.
I agree nihilism can be very useless, but equally useless is imagining there is purpose where there is none. Everything in moderation, I guess. I believe in personal purposes and reasons for living, but grand purposes for the universe and everything inside it, or all conciseness beings? No.
"my entire purpose or reason for being here is to merely experience...." That sounds very much how I would explain my personal reason for being.
OK, I understand what you mean now (and I did not exactly before). You are right, at least mostly, I guess, in my opinion. - You are very convincing. As for equivalence to religion: Religions often are about aggrandizing a deity and through him/her/it finding a clear purpose in life. Human Rights seems to parallel this by self-aggrandizing the human race and raising it to a godlike position (evidence: it is clear from your wording that you have a certain reverence for human kind), and through this philosophy giving a purpose to life. Gods give sets of rules to follow to live a moral life, Human Rights give sets of rights to follow to live a moral life. I don't think there is anything about Human Rights that does not fit within the boundaries of religion, and I do not think that it leaves anything out that religions normally have either.
Ultimately, I think I am too nihilistic to personally buy into Human Rights.
"Religions seek to answer the big questions. Who? Why? How? Where?" "God did it" is not an answer to anything, and not all religions even have a creation story. I would say, Religions seek to give meaning to life.
"Everything is spread by dialogue and conversation. At one point, all philosophy was only passed down by oral tradition." All philosophy, yes. But not inherent human conditions. Laughter, love, friendship, did not have to be spread by dialogue. Nothing that is inherent, by definition, needs to be spread or invented.
I have to admit, this almost convinced me. For the last 12 hours I thought you very well might have a point. But for something to be inherently human you would expect it to appear throughout history and geography. But even you admit (and I completely agree) that inherent rights are a brand new philosophy that have originated in North America. I would compare it to a religion. Not inherent, not particularly meaningful, not containing any ultimate truth. Starting in a single location and spreading only through conversions. And even similarly to religion the new conversions are the most devoted. "People who live under military juntas and dictators tend to have a more favorable view of human rights and understand the value of them."
Wireless is so overrated. A million more random issues, including but not limited to every other electronic device giving out interference. I have randomly been unable to access shares over wireless networks, randomly been unable to connect, lost connection whenever the wireless phone rang or someone used the microwave. it is not worth the hassle. Also it is significantly slower to transferring files (the new N is slower then gigabit and the old common stuff is way slower then the old 100 cable).
Google has been experimenting in self driving vehicles for years now, that part was not a April Fools joke. They might have joked about partnering with Nascar, but it actually sounds reasonable. And they very much are researching and building prototypes of driver-less vehicles.
Slashdot Mirror
Ya, I am not sure about the specifics of the US but they do have more Freedoms of speech.
In Canada all we have, basically is: You can say whatever you want, unless it offended someone, he charges you, and a judge finds that what you have said is unreasonably offensive.
The law is worded loosely enough that anything can be considered illegal to say, if the judge finds it so.
I agree 100%.
But the easiest thing for a person to say in that situation is simply the truth. Coming up with a lie is difficult and the truth has the added benefit of stopping future pain as well as current.
And confessions do not have to come under the knife, so to speak; It does not have to be a moment of irrational weakness. The subject can come to the realization that overall his life will be better if he starts to cooperative between sessions.
Well it depends on the information. locations/addresses can be checked, locations and dates of attacks can be guarded (but this takes longer because you have to wait), etc.
Everything that is of practical use in the real world can be verified because it exists or does not. As for confessions, there is tons of evidence that when you are looking for specific "known" information and all you want is for someone to confirm with a yes/no (where a yes means stop the torture and a no means continue until we get a yes) that you will not get the truth. When you are doing this you do not want the truth, only an excuse.
What only works in movies?
Verifying a phone number/or other generic information by dialling/using it?
Or you mean torture. Yes there has never been a scientific study confirming or denying its effectiveness but the entire subject matter is far to immoral to ever have one. Yes, that is a common belief, but not one grounded in any facts; People just want to believe that something this immoral would not be effective (similarly to crime does not pay).
And like I said a few comments above, the idea is very simple; You pay a person to help you, particularly in this case you pay them with by stopping the pain/discomfort/psychological abuse.
And we already have studies, I assume, on the effectiveness of trading goods/services between entities for the betterment of both. The idea is so simple and based in other common ideas that unless there is a lot of evidence to disprove its effectiveness then you really have to assume that it works.
Because being able to verify information is not at all the same as knowing it...
For instance I might ask you for the phone number for a contacting someone. I am asking you this because I do not know it and for some reason cannot find it on my own. But I can verify the information you gave me by using it.
In general you verify through a second source or even easier through using it in the real world.
If a terrorist tells you under torture that their main base is at such and such a location, then you check it out and wee if it is filled with terrorists.
If it turned out to be a false lead then you resume torturing.
Oh, that is a huge exaggeration.
as long as the subject remains lucid, and you have some way of verifying the information, torture is a pretty simple idea.
Make the subject want the torture to end more then he wants to not give up the information (it is identical to payment/bribery).
Yes, we know that it can be used in stupid ways, like getting people to admit to anything, but you would hope that the FBI knows enough about the uses and weaknesses of torture to not get into trouble like that.
If I said there was a bomb under your chair right now, would you check?
If it is not a credible threat then there is no reason to go out of your way.
I think the solution to this problem is to ignore bomb threats when you have every reason to believe that they are fake.
You simply cannot really catch someone if he does nothing other then writing notes and does not screw up.
There are many ways you could go about informing the police/faculty of a bomb with no risk of getting caught.
"No, they can't. They MAY be allowed to in 2015, if the King keeps his promise."
2015 is the next election. No one can vote when an election is not being held.
The part where one country is not an entire continent sized region or representative of a globe spanning religion.
Also Women is Saudi Arabia can vote and run for office, historically they could not (like everywhere 100 year ago).
Also there is nothing in the law about leaving the house. Particular families might practice that but you would have to look for statistics to see how prevalent, if at all, that it is.
As for face coverings, yes Saudi Arabia practices that but most Arad nations outright ban the practice and the consensus is that that practice is a mistranslation and is only practiced by fanatics.
So what is that? 2/5 complete lies, and the rest exaggerations [some of them so extreme as to have no sliver of truth] (particularly if you look at them as accusations against all Arabs).
You can find crazies, fanatics, and hate filled individuals in all countries and religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church).
The news in the west is completely anti-Arab. Don't believe what the mainstream media says about them (none of it is all true, and a surprising amount is complete lies/so exaggerated that it might as well be a complete lie).
First degree murder is when someone plans in advance to murder someone. If he has a grudge against this person and lured him out to the spot he was shot, that would be 1st degree murder.
Since he did not, and likely even thought he was semi justified in shooting him, 2nd degree is not even guaranteed to pass.
Well they are not telling them to find all the negative press and pretend to be a average consumer and refute it. Spreading the word is different from false and misleading advertising.
If a modern day game company made that it would be a 500MB cutscene.
Demoscene? Demoparty? 64kb executable?
Most if not all MI clients have that, normally it is referred to as appear offline.
AIM might of invented it, but any full IM client has that functionality. As for steam, the steam client as a whole is missing a huge number of common features.
What? Do you have no concept of what is going on here?
Theoretically they just traded 1 billion dollars worth of useless patents that were just gathering dust for 1 billion dollars that they can use for anything.
They are worth today exactly what they were worth yesterday.
What they do with this influx of money will determine if they gain or lose value as a company.
I agree nihilism can be very useless, but equally useless is imagining there is purpose where there is none. Everything in moderation, I guess. I believe in personal purposes and reasons for living, but grand purposes for the universe and everything inside it, or all conciseness beings? No.
"my entire purpose or reason for being here is to merely experience. ..." That sounds very much how I would explain my personal reason for being.
It has indeed been fun chatting.
OK, I understand what you mean now (and I did not exactly before).
You are right, at least mostly, I guess, in my opinion. - You are very convincing.
As for equivalence to religion: Religions often are about aggrandizing a deity and through him/her/it finding a clear purpose in life. Human Rights seems to parallel this by self-aggrandizing the human race and raising it to a godlike position (evidence: it is clear from your wording that you have a certain reverence for human kind), and through this philosophy giving a purpose to life. Gods give sets of rules to follow to live a moral life, Human Rights give sets of rights to follow to live a moral life.
I don't think there is anything about Human Rights that does not fit within the boundaries of religion, and I do not think that it leaves anything out that religions normally have either.
Ultimately, I think I am too nihilistic to personally buy into Human Rights.
"Religions seek to answer the big questions. Who? Why? How? Where?"
"God did it" is not an answer to anything, and not all religions even have a creation story. I would say, Religions seek to give meaning to life.
"Everything is spread by dialogue and conversation. At one point, all philosophy was only passed down by oral tradition."
All philosophy, yes. But not inherent human conditions.
Laughter, love, friendship, did not have to be spread by dialogue. Nothing that is inherent, by definition, needs to be spread or invented.
I have to admit, this almost convinced me. For the last 12 hours I thought you very well might have a point.
But for something to be inherently human you would expect it to appear throughout history and geography.
But even you admit (and I completely agree) that inherent rights are a brand new philosophy that have originated in North America.
I would compare it to a religion.
Not inherent, not particularly meaningful, not containing any ultimate truth.
Starting in a single location and spreading only through conversions.
And even similarly to religion the new conversions are the most devoted. "People who live under military juntas and dictators tend to have a more favorable view of human rights and understand the value of them."
Wireless is so overrated. A million more random issues, including but not limited to every other electronic device giving out interference. I have randomly been unable to access shares over wireless networks, randomly been unable to connect, lost connection whenever the wireless phone rang or someone used the microwave. it is not worth the hassle.
Also it is significantly slower to transferring files (the new N is slower then gigabit and the old common stuff is way slower then the old 100 cable).
Assuming they used proper testing methods, this sounds like pretty conclusive proof.
Well it technically is buses. "busses" is even highlighted as wrong by Chrome.
Google has been experimenting in self driving vehicles for years now, that part was not a April Fools joke.
They might have joked about partnering with Nascar, but it actually sounds reasonable. And they very much are researching and building prototypes of driver-less vehicles.