"They look upon fraud as a greater crime than theft, and therefore seldom fail to punish it with death; for they allege, that care and vigilance, with a very common understanding, may preserve a man’s goods from thieves, but honesty has no defence against superior cunning; and, since it is necessary that there should be a perpetual intercourse of buying and selling, and dealing upon credit, where fraud is permitted and connived at, or has no law to punish it, the honest dealer is always undone, and the knave gets the advantage."
... and bringing up Exxon and Phillip Morris (further below). Let's go back a little further.
Remember how much crap Galileo had to take, 'way back when? Remember thinking, in elementary school, how could people have been so stupid back then. Thank goodness we live in an age of reason now, right? Remember thinking that?
I just flashed on the thought that maybe those attitudes were just our grade school naivety, brought about by not realizing (back then, so young) that scientists have always had to fight against sophomoric orthodoxy from the inside and arrogant stupidity from the outside. Hoc opus hic labor est. No sense in complaining about it.
(Yeah, I know. That Latin quote is a descent-into-hell reference. But if you realize, that's what your job is, to push back the boundaries of stupidity, and it ain't ever going to be easy, maybe it won't seem so bad to have chosen that path.)
Absolutely correct. Completely unconstitutional. That's why constitutional immunity is the finest kind to have. Not just immunity against prosecution, both criminal and civil. Immunity against arrest. Also, any physical assault or battery on a US Senator, no matter how minor or gentle, is a felony.
Someone in the TSA, probably several people, will soon be learning a hard, painful lesson they should've learned in high school.
P.S., FYI: The term the Legislative Branch uses is Member of Congress, not Congressman. Refers neutrally to both House and Senate, male and female.
Less than a day after this Slashdot posting, a hunter in Vermont shot his friend and hunting buddy, then himself, presumably out of sadness and grief. It hit the news nationwide because the guy who did the shooting was the son of a state representative.
Makes it kinda hard to laugh at the hunter joke in The Fine Article, no matter how universally appreciated it is.
So yeah, by all means, laugh while you still can. But do so even if Big Brother isn't watching. Events come around quickly enough to make any joke lose its funny.
Canadian common law derives from British common law the same as the US's. You don't have immunity from prosecution the way the police do, but if it meets the criteria for citizen's arrest, and particularly if the arrest results in a conviction, you're unlikely to be prosecuted, criminally or civilly, for false arrest.
It doesn't meet the usual misdemeanor criteria for citizen's arrest in most jurisdictions, because you yourself didn't witness the theft. But given the cost of the laptop, it probably meets the felony criteria. Meet with the VPD detectives and voice your intent to make a citizen's arrest. Ask for their advice about how to do it legally. Sometimes the thought that you might actually succeed is sufficient to motivate the police to get creative with stuff they CAN do, if only to get credit for the arrest.
Superman can see even beyond the ultraviolet,
into the x-ray spectrum,
but only when he wants to.
Me, I've been trying like heck to shut off my ability to see blue,
primarily during Redskins/Cowboys football games,
but I haven't yet gotten it to work.
So I was thinking,
maybe the shorter wavelengths are what allow voluntary control.
Please let us know what you discover.
In related news for nerds,
here's a B movie about a guy who wanted to see more outside the normal-human spectrum,
but without the ability to turn it off:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057693/
Many tools for the same job. Blocked here, circumvent there, get everywhere you want to go. Outta my way, only-one-way-to-do-things developers. On the web, I'm in charge.
Some would take issue with the view that you're paying people to gamble, on the grounds that the odds aren't rigged against you. In the parimutuel betting system, for example, a fixed fraction of all bets (1/6th in my state) is set aside for the profit of the house and government, and the remaining money goes into pools to pay off winners of bets. So in my state, you have to do 20% better than chance (on average) just to break even. In the more common view of gambling, the house and government are said to be running a service, not gambling, because the system rigs the flow of money in their direction. Only the bettors are said to be gambling, because the odds are rigged against them. Under that definition, gambling is always ill-advised, stupid, a crime and/or a sin.
In the case of the stock market, the flow of money seems to go to many of the same traders, over and over again. This seems to be based on good business practices, good analysis of publicly traded companies, etc, not based on policies or procedures meant to guarantee that certain parties always succeed. To the extent to which that's true, the odds aren't rigged against you. But to the extent that some folks violate the rules (stealing, insider trading, just trying not to look bad so as to have a decent chance at success in the marketplace, etc), there is sufficient variability of outcome to cause others to say that the stock market is gambling too. Under that definition, gambling is an unavoidable condition of life itself, and your best bet is to work for those who seem to know how to put food on their own tables.
And now here's my point, which I apologize for taking so long to get to: Regardless of how you view the stock market, there's no doubt that compulsive gamblers view it as a bet that isn't rigged against them, and therefore a better bet than rigged-against-you gambling. So in hiring stock market traders, it would seem prudent to screen out compulsive gamblers, who will be naturally attracted to the job. Unauthorized use of someone else's money to gamble, in false hope of winning and paying back that money, would seem to qualify.
Slashdot Mirror
"They look upon fraud as a greater crime than theft, and therefore seldom fail to punish it with death; for they allege, that care and vigilance, with a very common understanding, may preserve a man’s goods from thieves, but honesty has no defence against superior cunning; and, since it is necessary that there should be a perpetual intercourse of buying and selling, and dealing upon credit, where fraud is permitted and connived at, or has no law to punish it, the honest dealer is always undone, and the knave gets the advantage."
Norton prefers to say that they were colonically extracted.
Clearly they came from Indoeuropea.
The money he'd be paying to lawyers would buy a rather extensive new iTunes library.
Not relevant to helicopter article. Just a reminder.
It's called the Jordache gene.
Hey, wait. Why is this post adjacent to "How Long Do You Want to Live?"
If you left out "tends to".
"Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton
Earth's spin affecting weight measurement is hundred year old, settled science. In fact, even the direction of travel has a measurable effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect
But, hey, science is all about reproducible results right? Nice to see they reproduce so well.
The 3/1000 difference from .2425 to .2422 results in a Y30K problem. After 30,000 AD, we can relax for a while.
... and bringing up Exxon and Phillip Morris (further below). Let's go back a little further.
Remember how much crap Galileo had to take, 'way back when? Remember thinking, in elementary school, how could people have been so stupid back then. Thank goodness we live in an age of reason now, right? Remember thinking that?
I just flashed on the thought that maybe those attitudes were just our grade school naivety, brought about by not realizing (back then, so young) that scientists have always had to fight against sophomoric orthodoxy from the inside and arrogant stupidity from the outside. Hoc opus hic labor est. No sense in complaining about it.
(Yeah, I know. That Latin quote is a descent-into-hell reference. But if you realize, that's what your job is, to push back the boundaries of stupidity, and it ain't ever going to be easy, maybe it won't seem so bad to have chosen that path.)
Absolutely correct. Completely unconstitutional. That's why constitutional immunity is the finest kind to have. Not just immunity against prosecution, both criminal and civil. Immunity against arrest. Also, any physical assault or battery on a US Senator, no matter how minor or gentle, is a felony.
Someone in the TSA, probably several people, will soon be learning a hard, painful lesson they should've learned in high school.
P.S., FYI: The term the Legislative Branch uses is Member of Congress, not Congressman. Refers neutrally to both House and Senate, male and female.
Just walk around with your head up your ass.
Anything by Gene Weingarten. As a starter, I'm with Stupid: One Man. One Woman. 10000 Years of Misunderstanding Between the Sexes Cleared Right Up.
Less than a day after this Slashdot posting, a hunter in Vermont shot his friend and hunting buddy, then himself, presumably out of sadness and grief. It hit the news nationwide because the guy who did the shooting was the son of a state representative.
Makes it kinda hard to laugh at the hunter joke in The Fine Article, no matter how universally appreciated it is.
So yeah, by all means, laugh while you still can. But do so even if Big Brother isn't watching. Events come around quickly enough to make any joke lose its funny.
Baiting Apple for the lawsuit's free publicity. Pretty transparent ploy.
...not the Thorium Web. Thanks for the nerdy tangent, however.
What I wanted to know most wasn't in the summary. The Fine Article tells me that the B53 is 9 megatons.
Canadian common law derives from British common law the same as the US's. You don't have immunity from prosecution the way the police do, but if it meets the criteria for citizen's arrest, and particularly if the arrest results in a conviction, you're unlikely to be prosecuted, criminally or civilly, for false arrest.
It doesn't meet the usual misdemeanor criteria for citizen's arrest in most jurisdictions, because you yourself didn't witness the theft. But given the cost of the laptop, it probably meets the felony criteria. Meet with the VPD detectives and voice your intent to make a citizen's arrest. Ask for their advice about how to do it legally. Sometimes the thought that you might actually succeed is sufficient to motivate the police to get creative with stuff they CAN do, if only to get credit for the arrest.
Superman can see even beyond the ultraviolet, into the x-ray spectrum, but only when he wants to. Me, I've been trying like heck to shut off my ability to see blue, primarily during Redskins/Cowboys football games, but I haven't yet gotten it to work. So I was thinking, maybe the shorter wavelengths are what allow voluntary control. Please let us know what you discover.
In related news for nerds, here's a B movie about a guy who wanted to see more outside the normal-human spectrum, but without the ability to turn it off: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057693/
Many tools for the same job. Blocked here, circumvent there, get everywhere you want to go. Outta my way, only-one-way-to-do-things developers. On the web, I'm in charge.
Oh, it's that rdctd fckhd again. I've seen a lot of stuff by him lately.
Some would take issue with the view that you're paying people to gamble, on the grounds that the odds aren't rigged against you. In the parimutuel betting system, for example, a fixed fraction of all bets (1/6th in my state) is set aside for the profit of the house and government, and the remaining money goes into pools to pay off winners of bets. So in my state, you have to do 20% better than chance (on average) just to break even. In the more common view of gambling, the house and government are said to be running a service, not gambling, because the system rigs the flow of money in their direction. Only the bettors are said to be gambling, because the odds are rigged against them. Under that definition, gambling is always ill-advised, stupid, a crime and/or a sin.
In the case of the stock market, the flow of money seems to go to many of the same traders, over and over again. This seems to be based on good business practices, good analysis of publicly traded companies, etc, not based on policies or procedures meant to guarantee that certain parties always succeed. To the extent to which that's true, the odds aren't rigged against you. But to the extent that some folks violate the rules (stealing, insider trading, just trying not to look bad so as to have a decent chance at success in the marketplace, etc), there is sufficient variability of outcome to cause others to say that the stock market is gambling too. Under that definition, gambling is an unavoidable condition of life itself, and your best bet is to work for those who seem to know how to put food on their own tables.
And now here's my point, which I apologize for taking so long to get to: Regardless of how you view the stock market, there's no doubt that compulsive gamblers view it as a bet that isn't rigged against them, and therefore a better bet than rigged-against-you gambling. So in hiring stock market traders, it would seem prudent to screen out compulsive gamblers, who will be naturally attracted to the job. Unauthorized use of someone else's money to gamble, in false hope of winning and paying back that money, would seem to qualify.
Pessimistic Uranian.
Best one I've ever lived on, in fact.