Some of the date rape drugs already do something like this. They don't so knock you out, they do make you compliant and remove your ability to form new memories while they affect you. Girl wakes up next morning wondering why her clothes are torn and how she got hurt. No memories exist of the event even though she was awake if somewhat out of it at the time.
Just because a guy doesn't actually have the girl over his shoulder best not to assume he hasn't drugged her.
Well I never said that but it boils down to "assuming the international community isn't chickenshit then there are minimum standards which even governments will be held to on pain of sanctions or war." Course if the country involved has enough power or powerful friends then it's only "on pain of being slapped on the wrist and scowled at"
It's more a structure so that if genocide is spotted something can be done... note "can" not "will" since the international community is chickenshit.
Yes but the US government treats it like toilet paper and refuses to listen to all those evil international organisations which try to prevent torture so it isn't going to help you if you're in there.
since as everyone knows: if you spend 6 months working in a soup kitchen helping people you get 1 free murder which is of course canceled out by your good deed and for which you should not be punished.:-)
The capitalistic answer is that your boss could have made money selling copies of your code, never mind that supporting a pay product can be a big hassel and if the market isn't big enough it can simply not be economic. Also buisness men don't like giving away things which might help their competitors. [Personally likes open source but has heard too many of the old tired ant FOSS arguments]
Poverty itself isn't the problem, it's inherited poverty that's the problem.
"Fair" doesn't mean "everyone succeeds" "Fair" means everyone gets a decent chance to succeed and those who get things right do succeed more. You can still get unlucky on a fair dice role and be screwed.
"Unfair" only kicks in when you go for multiple generations and players start with less chips and the game loaded against them.
Problem is that almost no societies are fair, they either remove the ability of those capable of doing well from benefiting from it for the sake of the losers or alternatively screw the kids of people who've done badly for the benefit of the winners of the last round and their kids.
Depends how you do it, if your goal is to encourage people to set up companies and generate wealth/jobs then it's great, if your goal is to let your friends make a killing exploiting the poor then it's much much worse.
Any terrorist who wanted to break into a food processing plant and steal some of the stuff for irradiating food would be better served to bring some botulin toxin with them, and drop it into one (or all) of the production vats. Then they could steal the radioactives, drop them off at the local landfill, lead the feds on a wild goose chase looking for a dirty bomb while millions die of food poisoning.
I like the way you think! layers within layers.
I'm fully aware that a bomb can't be created easily, that was my point. Getting your hands on some nuclear material however? :
Sellafield- a section of a uranium fuel rod was found in a worker's desk drawer. Don't get me wrong I'm completely in favor of nuclear power but some of the fuckups from that plant sound more like something from the simpsons than anything else.
Course it would be a little useless to terrorists but still, how does that kind of thing even happen.
I'd put the figure at a little more than 100 years, some of the medium level 200-500 year stuff can be nasty if you're exposed for an extended time.
But ya, people are retarded when it comes to radiation. I don't know how often I've heard the phrase "dirty bomb" when someone wants to claim that nuclear power plants would be much use for terrorists even after it's pointed out that you can't just grab a handful of normal nuclear fuel and turn it into an H-bomb in your garden shed.
NEWS FLASH PEOPLE: Any terrorists who want to make a dirty bomb could just raid a food processing plant and steal some of the stuff used for irradiating the food.
God, tell me about it. After reading a comment on the good old somethingawful forums on the subject I did the math for how much uranium/thorium and other nasties can be found in coal. a few parts per million doesn't sound like much but when you burn billions of tons of coal it adds up FAST. Powering everything with nuclear and having a chernoble every year would put less radioactive material into the air/water/ground.
I wish someone could get around to actually finishing an IFR so we could just say "burn it for fuel in the ifr" whenever someone spews crap about how there's no way of getting rid of nuclear waste for a hundred thousand years. Technical problem, technical solution.
oh they get around that by bringing the case against inanimate objects. Oh you haven't been taken to court and your property taken from you, your property has been taken to court and taken from itself.(big difference huh)
If you take that view then glutony comes under the same catagory when you clog up your heart...then it directly affects the gluttons's family. Not so victimless now is it?
If you take that view then dangerous sports comes under the same catagory when you smash your head off a rock while river rafting... then it directly affects your family. Not so victimless now is it?
Alcohol - alhoclol, drunken beating, affects your family. Not so victimless now is it?
Stock trading, loseing it all in a stock crash: affects your family. Not so victimless now is it?
Lighting scented candels: burns down your house and kills you and your family. Not so victimless now is it?
The "It affects the persons family" argument is bullshit because it covers everything and anything. Everything has a chance to hurt your family and even if you don't have a family you get covered by the same crap laws.
Best comparison: you run a mail order buisness in europe which competes with Kentuky buisnesses. Kentuky judge confiscates your postal address(it of course being your property) and has all your mail sent to whoever he choses.
Fun one to try: find some european law which a few of the big US companies are breaking and try the same trick. Wouldn't it be fun to own www.microsoft.com or www.google.com
But that's not what they're doing. They're not rerouting traffic in the state. They just took the domain names. As in they can send joe blogs in japan to their own servers when he looks up one of those sites.
Imagine that you ran a mail order buisness, your "domain name" is your postal address. You live and run your buisness from Iceland say or China. A judge in an american state decides that you are competing with local buisnesses and signs an order taking your postal address and from then on any post sent from anywhere be it America, Europe or elsewhere will not be sent to you but rather to the judge.
The basis of course being that your postal address is an item required to do illegal buisness with people in an american state.
Clear enough for everyone?
The best solution would be for any registrars outside this juristiction to simply list the correct ownership information for the domains .
My money, my choice to be stupid or not.Nothing wrong with gambling as long as people are fully aware that the house always makes the profit in the end. I worked in a dog track for 2 years and on more than a few occasions someone got pissed off after losing and started shouting about how it was a big scam!... seemed to take the wind out of them when I somply agrees with them than yes it was a big scam, what did they think paid for all the nice things there. For the majority it's simply entertainment, they pet a little and lose a little. Just because the occasional fool makes foolish choices doesn't mean it should be banned.
1 mother 1 father 2.3 children is the common way. That says little about how optimal it is. It's easier, it's simpler and it's not too bad a headache legaly but optimal? How do you know that 1 father 3 mothers isn't more optimal? or 3 fathers and 1 mother? or all mothers? or all fathers? In societies where resources are extremely scarce it can be more common for a group of brothers to support 1 wife and children. In such situations 1:1 is certainly not optimal since the children would starve. Where resources are pleantiful 1 man might be able to support 3 wives. In such situations the most capable(or at least richest) men have larger families. This too could be considered more optimal in such situations.
The moral of the story: Just because you were raised in a 1 mother 1 father family doesn't mean that your way is any better. "Easy" often becomes more common than "Optimal". Hell a 10 mothers 10 fathers relationship might be much better for a child but it's much harder to hold together than a 1:1 relationship.
"proven over time in history that such practice is destructive to society as a whole" [citation needed]
People generally don't like the idea of their partner screwing around(*generally*, there are pleanty of exceptions) all this is is a mechanism to try to avoid investing resources in a child which is not yours. Thus marriage is simply a mechanism to avoid investing resources in a child which is not yours. With birth control and pleanty of excess resources around I'd hope people would be able to rise above such base instincts as marriage but no, people who are unable to step back from their primitive instincts try to hold us back.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of the date rape drugs already do something like this.
They don't so knock you out, they do make you compliant and remove your ability to form new memories while they affect you.
Girl wakes up next morning wondering why her clothes are torn and how she got hurt.
No memories exist of the event even though she was awake if somewhat out of it at the time.
Just because a guy doesn't actually have the girl over his shoulder best not to assume he hasn't drugged her.
Well I never said that but it boils down to "assuming the international community isn't chickenshit then there are minimum standards which even governments will be held to on pain of sanctions or war." Course if the country involved has enough power or powerful friends then it's only "on pain of being slapped on the wrist and scowled at"
It's more a structure so that if genocide is spotted something can be done... note "can" not "will" since the international community is chickenshit.
Yes but the US government treats it like toilet paper and refuses to listen to all those evil international organisations which try to prevent torture so it isn't going to help you if you're in there.
since as everyone knows: if you spend 6 months working in a soup kitchen helping people you get 1 free murder which is of course canceled out by your good deed and for which you should not be punished. :-)
I know americans only learn about rights specific to america but try reading the UDoHR some time.doesn't matter where you live, it applies to you.
The capitalistic answer is that your boss could have made money selling copies of your code, never mind that supporting a pay product can be a big hassel and if the market isn't big enough it can simply not be economic. Also buisness men don't like giving away things which might help their competitors.
[Personally likes open source but has heard too many of the old tired ant FOSS arguments]
Poverty itself isn't the problem, it's inherited poverty that's the problem.
"Fair" doesn't mean "everyone succeeds"
"Fair" means everyone gets a decent chance to succeed and those who get things right do succeed more.
You can still get unlucky on a fair dice role and be screwed.
"Unfair" only kicks in when you go for multiple generations and players start with less chips and the game loaded against them.
Problem is that almost no societies are fair, they either remove the ability of those capable of doing well from benefiting from it for the sake of the losers or alternatively screw the kids of people who've done badly for the benefit of the winners of the last round and their kids.
Depends how you do it, if your goal is to encourage people to set up companies and generate wealth/jobs then it's great, if your goal is to let your friends make a killing exploiting the poor then it's much much worse.
Cut down version of the above:
They made it easier for companies to outsource to india and invested in education so they had something to sell(labour).
Any terrorist who wanted to break into a food processing plant and steal some of the stuff for irradiating food would be better served to bring some botulin toxin with them, and drop it into one (or all) of the production vats. Then they could steal the radioactives, drop them off at the local landfill, lead the feds on a wild goose chase looking for a dirty bomb while millions die of food poisoning.
I like the way you think! layers within layers.
I'm fully aware that a bomb can't be created easily, that was my point. Getting your hands on some nuclear material however? :
Sellafield- a section of a uranium fuel rod was found in a worker's desk drawer. Don't get me wrong I'm completely in favor of nuclear power but some of the fuckups from that plant sound more like something from the simpsons than anything else.
Course it would be a little useless to terrorists but still, how does that kind of thing even happen.
I'd put the figure at a little more than 100 years, some of the medium level 200-500 year stuff can be nasty if you're exposed for an extended time.
But ya, people are retarded when it comes to radiation. I don't know how often I've heard the phrase "dirty bomb" when someone wants to claim that nuclear power plants would be much use for terrorists even after it's pointed out that you can't just grab a handful of normal nuclear fuel and turn it into an H-bomb in your garden shed.
NEWS FLASH PEOPLE: Any terrorists who want to make a dirty bomb could just raid a food processing plant and steal some of the stuff used for irradiating the food.
God, tell me about it. After reading a comment on the good old somethingawful forums on the subject I did the math for how much uranium/thorium and other nasties can be found in coal. a few parts per million doesn't sound like much but when you burn billions of tons of coal it adds up FAST.
Powering everything with nuclear and having a chernoble every year would put less radioactive material into the air/water/ground.
I wish someone could get around to actually finishing an IFR so we could just say "burn it for fuel in the ifr" whenever someone spews crap about how there's no way of getting rid of nuclear waste for a hundred thousand years. Technical problem, technical solution.
oh they get around that by bringing the case against inanimate objects. Oh you haven't been taken to court and your property taken from you, your property has been taken to court and taken from itself.(big difference huh)
Ah but once precedent is set he can just re-file in Kentucky! :D
Not so victimless anymore is it?
If you take that view then glutony comes under the same catagory when you clog up your heart...then it directly affects the gluttons's family.
Not so victimless now is it?
If you take that view then dangerous sports comes under the same catagory when you smash your head off a rock while river rafting... then it directly affects your family.
Not so victimless now is it?
Alcohol - alhoclol, drunken beating, affects your family.
Not so victimless now is it?
Stock trading, loseing it all in a stock crash: affects your family.
Not so victimless now is it?
Lighting scented candels: burns down your house and kills you and your family.
Not so victimless now is it?
The "It affects the persons family" argument is bullshit because it covers everything and anything. Everything has a chance to hurt your family and even if you don't have a family you get covered by the same crap laws.
business not buisness
Kentucky not Kentuky
chooses not choses
The spelling is weak with me today.
Best comparison: you run a mail order buisness in europe which competes with Kentuky buisnesses.
Kentuky judge confiscates your postal address(it of course being your property) and has all your mail sent to whoever he choses.
sounds reasonable.
Fun one to try: find some european law which a few of the big US companies are breaking and try the same trick. Wouldn't it be fun to own www.microsoft.com or www.google.com
Which is exactly why I like seeing casinos run by the government!
Stupid people lose money, the tax payers win.
Or countries which ban criticisms of their government start grabbing domains of american hosted sites which break those laws.
OK:
The judge runs over your puppy and laughs while pissing out the window on your head.
But that's not what they're doing.
They're not rerouting traffic in the state.
They just took the domain names.
As in they can send joe blogs in japan to their own servers when he looks up one of those sites.
Imagine that you ran a mail order buisness, your "domain name" is your postal address.
You live and run your buisness from Iceland say or China.
A judge in an american state decides that you are competing with local buisnesses and signs an order taking your postal address and from then on any post sent from anywhere be it America, Europe or elsewhere will not be sent to you but rather to the judge.
The basis of course being that your postal address is an item required to do illegal buisness with people in an american state.
Clear enough for everyone?
The best solution would be for any registrars outside this juristiction to simply list the correct ownership information for the domains .
My money, my choice to be stupid or not.Nothing wrong with gambling as long as people are fully aware that the house always makes the profit in the end. I worked in a dog track for 2 years and on more than a few occasions someone got pissed off after losing and started shouting about how it was a big scam!... seemed to take the wind out of them when I somply agrees with them than yes it was a big scam, what did they think paid for all the nice things there. For the majority it's simply entertainment, they pet a little and lose a little. Just because the occasional fool makes foolish choices doesn't mean it should be banned.
1 mother 1 father 2.3 children is the common way.
That says little about how optimal it is. It's easier, it's simpler and it's not too bad a headache legaly but optimal?
How do you know that 1 father 3 mothers isn't more optimal? or 3 fathers and 1 mother? or all mothers? or all fathers?
In societies where resources are extremely scarce it can be more common for a group of brothers to support 1 wife and children. In such situations 1:1 is certainly not optimal since the children would starve. Where resources are pleantiful 1 man might be able to support 3 wives. In such situations the most capable(or at least richest) men have larger families. This too could be considered more optimal in such situations.
The moral of the story: Just because you were raised in a 1 mother 1 father family doesn't mean that your way is any better. "Easy" often becomes more common than "Optimal". Hell a 10 mothers 10 fathers relationship might be much better for a child but it's much harder to hold together than a 1:1 relationship.
"proven over time in history that such practice is destructive to society as a whole" [citation needed]
People generally don't like the idea of their partner screwing around(*generally*, there are pleanty of exceptions) all this is is a mechanism to try to avoid investing resources in a child which is not yours. Thus marriage is simply a mechanism to avoid investing resources in a child which is not yours. With birth control and pleanty of excess resources around I'd hope people would be able to rise above such base instincts as marriage but no, people who are unable to step back from their primitive instincts try to hold us back.