Well, it depends. Obviously running cable through a conduit is somewhat more labour-intensive than pulling it out, especially if the conduit isn't vertical. In this case I'm not sure it was all that inaccessible, though, given that the thieves went through a manhole cover; surely that suggests at least a reasonable passage to crawl through.
The bill actually does touch on the style of patent litigation used by big tech companies:
But a number of voices, most with vested interests, have been scrambling to protect the trolls even with the concerns of the big trolls taken into account with the reduction of the bill's impact on "covered business methods." This part of patent law is used more by large corporate patent holders and thus opposed by the likes of IBM, Microsoft, General Electric, and Adobe.
At the time the story was fresh, it seemed likely that even if she were deemed competent, the punishment wouldn't be all that severe, very much because she wasn't likely to harm anyone else, yes. (As long as she doesn't have another roommate, anyway.)
I believe the (healthy) rationale behind the prosecution of cases where another attempt is unlikely or impossible (say the target died) is that the perpetrator has been shown to be unbalanced enough to attempt to redress one problem with murder and could potentially try to solve other problems the same way.
That being said, there aren't too many criminal justice systems that completely extricate themselves from being vengeful instruments of state violence.
As a general rule, to prevent further attempts. That counts as preventing harm!
(Although note my other post, which expands the definition to include redressal as well.)
There was a story a few years ago of an elderly lady with dementia who strangled another nursing home resident. Despite being an actual murder, it wasn't clear whether or not she'd actually be sentenced to any punishments.
I was taking the stance that harmful (either to the animal or the human) sexual contact could occur, and because of that we need some kind of law to regulate it. Not an outright ban, just limitations. If, for example, we declare gorillas people (as this lawsuit aims to do) they'd need to be taught not to act like an alpha silverback does in the wild; conversely, you'd still want regulations against penetrative sex with smaller animals likely to be harmed as that would constitute a clear-cut case of animal abuse.
The core issue I was trying to highlight is that the summary says "in all countries," which is misleading. It might be better to say "in a little over half of the countries" or even "in the majority of countries." The PISA 2012 results document uses the wording "many countries and economies" to describe the situation—never "all."
However, there's another problem with the summary sentence I quoted. The PISA 2012 results has this to say about reading:
By contrast, girls outperform boys in reading almost everywhere. This gender gap is particularly large in some high-performing countries, where almost all underperformance in reading is seen only among boys.
So the other part of that same sentence from TFS, "boys generally perform a bit better than girls, but this applies only to math," is extremely misleading due to its incompleteness, in addition to being horribly structured. (I trust you understand why this is a problem for journalistic honesty.)
No, that usage of "only" indicates that the result contravenes expectation or accepted belief. Example: "I only fell off the bike 25 times out of 26 attempts this time! That one other time, I managed to ride it for fifteen whole seconds!"
TFS: "The study shows also a slight gender cap: in all countries, boys generally perform a bit better than girls, but this applies only to math."
PISA 2012 Overview: "Boys perform better than girls in mathematics in only 37 out of the 65 countries and economies that participated in PISA 2012, and girls outperform boys in five countries." (For the curious, they're Jordan, Qatar, Thailand, Malaysia and Iceland.)
The Guardian article didn't get this wrong. What the hell, submitter?
I doubt you appreciate how marvellously simple-minded a Roomba truly is. I speak with certainty when I say that they are dumber than even our most celebrated politicians.
No, we shouldn't stop them from having sex with each other; that's an inherent paradox in giving non-cognizant organisms personhood. In fact it's a pretty good reason not to do it!
The thing about transgenics and hybrids is that they evoke really strong, directionless emotional responses from people. If you invent a 3D printer that can generate living human tissue and print off an entire human body, but only from the neck down, then there will be people who throw a fit and get the heeby-jeebies, even though the body never had the biological potential to be a full person and is inarguably less intelligent than a fruitfly! I think we'll need to develop more tiers of personhood before we can really address hybrids—and I think these developments will probably have uncomfortable consequences for the legal classification of the anencephelous and the brain-dead.
No, it isn't, due to alimony. A marriage is a life decision where two people choose to pool their resources. If the terms of the agreement permitting this decision are breached and the marriage nullified, then depending on the specifics of the marriage, one partner may be economically disadvantaged. Divorce law is essential to making sure that the two partners of the relationship get appropriate and fair recognition for the work they put into the marriage's success. Normally I'm not one for boiling personal matters down to money, but in this case it seems pretty obvious.
Humans legislate lots of things that animals do all the time. Murder? There's a law for that. Theft? There's a law for that. Sex? You bet there's a law for that. The argument that "animals do it all the time" is totally hypocritical to the premise of law.
On top of that, adult male gorillas can have the physical strength and body mass to force their desires on humans, and a tribal culture that promotes getting their way. The health and safety of both parties needs to be considered before engaging.
Marriage is a contract in modern law, not just a ritual; this is why informed consent matters. It has been shown that chimps and gorillas have intelligence comparable in many regards to that of a child; most importantly it is still debates as to whether or not they have theory of mind. Thus, no sex and no contracts, and no marriage. Alimony, for example, is problematic.
Other primates, even chimpanzees and gorillas, cannot give informed consent, so marrying them would never be justifiable for the same reason marrying a four-year-old is not reasonable. We need a whole lot more evolution and/or alien contact and/or resurrection of neaderthals and/or robots before there's anything non-human to meaningfully get freaky with.
As for limits on personhood (re worms), there are a number of animal rights movements, all with slightly different agendas. I'm sure there are probably some who go so far as to include worms, but the science doesn't really favour it since many worms (such as the laboratory scientist's favourite, Caenorhabditis elegans) are dumber than a Roomba.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it depends. Obviously running cable through a conduit is somewhat more labour-intensive than pulling it out, especially if the conduit isn't vertical. In this case I'm not sure it was all that inaccessible, though, given that the thieves went through a manhole cover; surely that suggests at least a reasonable passage to crawl through.
I can! It makes it completely. Completely of the hilarious.
No, we've disowned him now. You or one of your friends may be able to guess why!
The bill actually does touch on the style of patent litigation used by big tech companies:
But a number of voices, most with vested interests, have been scrambling to protect the trolls even with the concerns of the big trolls taken into account with the reduction of the bill's impact on "covered business methods." This part of patent law is used more by large corporate patent holders and thus opposed by the likes of IBM, Microsoft, General Electric, and Adobe.
(detail)
See exhibits (a), (b).
That, and, Omidyar feels that many of the participants in the PayPal DDoS saw it as a form of protest. He doesn't attribute malice to them.
At the time the story was fresh, it seemed likely that even if she were deemed competent, the punishment wouldn't be all that severe, very much because she wasn't likely to harm anyone else, yes. (As long as she doesn't have another roommate, anyway.)
I believe the (healthy) rationale behind the prosecution of cases where another attempt is unlikely or impossible (say the target died) is that the perpetrator has been shown to be unbalanced enough to attempt to redress one problem with murder and could potentially try to solve other problems the same way.
That being said, there aren't too many criminal justice systems that completely extricate themselves from being vengeful instruments of state violence.
It's very important legislation that protects the snack food industry from over-expansion.
As a general rule, to prevent further attempts. That counts as preventing harm!
(Although note my other post, which expands the definition to include redressal as well.)
There was a story a few years ago of an elderly lady with dementia who strangled another nursing home resident. Despite being an actual murder, it wasn't clear whether or not she'd actually be sentenced to any punishments.
I was taking the stance that harmful (either to the animal or the human) sexual contact could occur, and because of that we need some kind of law to regulate it. Not an outright ban, just limitations. If, for example, we declare gorillas people (as this lawsuit aims to do) they'd need to be taught not to act like an alpha silverback does in the wild; conversely, you'd still want regulations against penetrative sex with smaller animals likely to be harmed as that would constitute a clear-cut case of animal abuse.
Okay, fair. Prevent and redress harm.
De minimis non curat lex. Laws were invented to prevent harm, not categories of behaviour. Your point is fundamentally misguided.
The core issue I was trying to highlight is that the summary says "in all countries," which is misleading. It might be better to say "in a little over half of the countries" or even "in the majority of countries." The PISA 2012 results document uses the wording "many countries and economies" to describe the situation—never "all."
However, there's another problem with the summary sentence I quoted. The PISA 2012 results has this to say about reading:
By contrast, girls outperform boys in reading almost everywhere. This gender gap is particularly large in some high-performing countries, where almost all underperformance in reading is seen only among boys.
So the other part of that same sentence from TFS, "boys generally perform a bit better than girls, but this applies only to math," is extremely misleading due to its incompleteness, in addition to being horribly structured. (I trust you understand why this is a problem for journalistic honesty.)
No, that usage of "only" indicates that the result contravenes expectation or accepted belief. Example: "I only fell off the bike 25 times out of 26 attempts this time! That one other time, I managed to ride it for fifteen whole seconds!"
TFS: "The study shows also a slight gender cap: in all countries, boys generally perform a bit better than girls, but this applies only to math."
PISA 2012 Overview: "Boys perform better than girls in mathematics in only 37 out of the 65 countries and economies that participated in PISA 2012, and girls outperform boys in five countries." (For the curious, they're Jordan, Qatar, Thailand, Malaysia and Iceland.)
The Guardian article didn't get this wrong. What the hell, submitter?
I doubt you appreciate how marvellously simple-minded a Roomba truly is. I speak with certainty when I say that they are dumber than even our most celebrated politicians.
It's definitely on the list.
It's also not legal to eat an adult human with his or her consent, so that's not really a question with the same properties.
You misunderstand; I argue that alimony is an example of why marriage is a financial arrangement and not merely ceremony.
No, we shouldn't stop them from having sex with each other; that's an inherent paradox in giving non-cognizant organisms personhood. In fact it's a pretty good reason not to do it!
The thing about transgenics and hybrids is that they evoke really strong, directionless emotional responses from people. If you invent a 3D printer that can generate living human tissue and print off an entire human body, but only from the neck down, then there will be people who throw a fit and get the heeby-jeebies, even though the body never had the biological potential to be a full person and is inarguably less intelligent than a fruitfly! I think we'll need to develop more tiers of personhood before we can really address hybrids—and I think these developments will probably have uncomfortable consequences for the legal classification of the anencephelous and the brain-dead.
No, it isn't, due to alimony. A marriage is a life decision where two people choose to pool their resources. If the terms of the agreement permitting this decision are breached and the marriage nullified, then depending on the specifics of the marriage, one partner may be economically disadvantaged. Divorce law is essential to making sure that the two partners of the relationship get appropriate and fair recognition for the work they put into the marriage's success. Normally I'm not one for boiling personal matters down to money, but in this case it seems pretty obvious.
Humans legislate lots of things that animals do all the time. Murder? There's a law for that. Theft? There's a law for that. Sex? You bet there's a law for that. The argument that "animals do it all the time" is totally hypocritical to the premise of law.
On top of that, adult male gorillas can have the physical strength and body mass to force their desires on humans, and a tribal culture that promotes getting their way. The health and safety of both parties needs to be considered before engaging.
Marriage is a contract in modern law, not just a ritual; this is why informed consent matters. It has been shown that chimps and gorillas have intelligence comparable in many regards to that of a child; most importantly it is still debates as to whether or not they have theory of mind. Thus, no sex and no contracts, and no marriage. Alimony, for example, is problematic.
Other primates, even chimpanzees and gorillas, cannot give informed consent, so marrying them would never be justifiable for the same reason marrying a four-year-old is not reasonable. We need a whole lot more evolution and/or alien contact and/or resurrection of neaderthals and/or robots before there's anything non-human to meaningfully get freaky with.
As for limits on personhood (re worms), there are a number of animal rights movements, all with slightly different agendas. I'm sure there are probably some who go so far as to include worms, but the science doesn't really favour it since many worms (such as the laboratory scientist's favourite, Caenorhabditis elegans) are dumber than a Roomba.
Okay, maybe he was just a... dragon.
But he was still TROGDOR!