"They took the FBI's bait and I don't feel sympathy for them. Let them rot."
Do you feel the same way for the many people who are persuaded post-hoc into false confessions? Perhaps they're even worse people, if they are agreeable that they must have already done some criminal act in the past?
"If you're corruptible and in a position in which your corruption gets people killed"
These people were never in a position where they could ever get anyone killed.
Look, I was on a public bus yesterday when a bunch of mentally handicapped people got on (part of a group outing, it appeared). Surely I could have jawboned one of them into agreeing to something insane if I so wished (and it happens all the time in false confession cases). But I don't go around making a career of it, or call myself an American hero for it.
This sure sounds like circular, self-justifying logic. "The fact that we irrationally spaz out over terrorism means terrorism is worse and justifies our spazzing out over it."
Writing, scissors, buttons, car shifter (first few I thought of in 10 seconds).
In particular, writing: It's designed that right-handers are dragging the writing implement behind their hand in a smooth gliding motion. For left-handers we're smashing the point into the page in front of our hand, making it highly variable and irregular (a non-equilibrium), and then also smearing the hand over what we just wrote. Truly a pain. That's specifically the reason why my uncle (for example) was forced to switch by my grandparents tying his left hand behind his back.
And personally, I think that writing is the most important of all human tools.
^ This is the most accurate thing that can be said. The article was the dumbest thing I've read about gaming in a long, long time. The thesis: "Games are too expensive so you should add exponentially more complexity to make them cheaper" is obviously a non-starter. And yes, the indestructible objects item was a low point:
"Ideally, let's just get rid of invulnerable structures, period... Giving players the freedom to re-shape terrain does create certain challenges, but not as many as you might think. There's a reason why soldiers in the real world don't go around firing rocket launchers inside of buildings or hurling blocks of C4 at the opposing side.... At the same time, destructible environments open up more avenues for players to experiment and have fun inside the game."
Translation: Players must be able to blow up literally everything, including entire buildings. It's OK because even if you spend the colossal effort to make it possible, players won't do it because there are drawbacks. Except that players definitely will do it because it's fun.
Yes, here in the USA it definitely works differently than how you describe. No order from any judge is necessary. Property can be seized by law enforcement even without any of those findings. If you're up for it, then maybe you can pay tens of thousands of dollars for a lawyer to bring suit any maybe-if-you're-lucky get it back (noting of course that usually makes the prospect a net loss anyway).
Also note: The USA has already applied this to foreign banks in several cases when transfers at some point were made in units of U.S. currency.
I think you missed the point about "The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime". There were recent cases of (a) two hispanic guys sent to buy land for a new church, and (b) a waitress who got a particularly large tip, who had all of their money confiscated under these laws.
Consider: Asset Forfeiture in the United States -- "Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime."
"They do not understand the basic foundations of any other viewpoint. It has been demonstrated in many studies - conservatives can pass a 'Turing test' and pretend to be a believable liberal; Liberals cannot pass the same test pretending to be conservatives."
I would like to see a citation for this. Personally, I have no difficulty "turning conservative" for a few minutes at a time and freaking out my liberal friends (as satire). Neither does Steven Colbert, for example (who's made a career out of it, of course).
Oh god, please. Compare to this case in Baltimore from just last month: BPD is hauled into court by the ACLU for routinely arresting people when they video police, under wiretapping statutes. Three days before the court hearing, BPD announces that they concede that people shouldn't be arrested for photography -- but within the same day, BPD are still arresting people taking video: except the charge has now magically changed to loitering.
The police departments are very consciously corrupting the law to benefit themselves, doing everything they can to delay and obstruct justice, and prosecutors are helping them along. If they get definitively slapped down in court for one thing, then within 24 hours they come up with brand-new bogus legal readings and go on with their abusive behavior unchanged. This is not remotely a "decision beyond their capability" one-time accident.
"wonders why this decades-old empirical observation goes seemingly completely unnoticed"
It's a statistical truth: You can do months, even years of carefully detailed observations, data collecting, and statistical analysis. Then when you present the results to your boss or client, if it's counter to their preconceived notions, they will respond: "Hey, fuck off." And likely hire new analysts.
See also: How the pharmaceutical industry gets new drugs approved (FDA requires two positives studies; any number of negative studies are ignored).
Yes. (It also synchs up with the xkcd offering, at least for the first case.) The way math goes though, I'll be surprised if your correct comment gets higher-modded than the incorrect one.
Slashdot Mirror
Horrible, dystopian, inevitable.
The copy will have additional breakdowns specific to the hardware it's running on (power failures, etc.), which will not be evidenced by the non-copy.
I think that Joel Spolsky would call this the "Law of Leaky Abstractions".
"They took the FBI's bait and I don't feel sympathy for them. Let them rot."
Do you feel the same way for the many people who are persuaded post-hoc into false confessions? Perhaps they're even worse people, if they are agreeable that they must have already done some criminal act in the past?
"If you're corruptible and in a position in which your corruption gets people killed"
These people were never in a position where they could ever get anyone killed.
Look, I was on a public bus yesterday when a bunch of mentally handicapped people got on (part of a group outing, it appeared). Surely I could have jawboned one of them into agreeing to something insane if I so wished (and it happens all the time in false confession cases). But I don't go around making a career of it, or call myself an American hero for it.
This sure sounds like circular, self-justifying logic. "The fact that we irrationally spaz out over terrorism means terrorism is worse and justifies our spazzing out over it."
Writing, scissors, buttons, car shifter (first few I thought of in 10 seconds).
In particular, writing: It's designed that right-handers are dragging the writing implement behind their hand in a smooth gliding motion. For left-handers we're smashing the point into the page in front of our hand, making it highly variable and irregular (a non-equilibrium), and then also smearing the hand over what we just wrote. Truly a pain. That's specifically the reason why my uncle (for example) was forced to switch by my grandparents tying his left hand behind his back.
And personally, I think that writing is the most important of all human tools.
"incredibly dumb article"
^ This is the most accurate thing that can be said. The article was the dumbest thing I've read about gaming in a long, long time. The thesis: "Games are too expensive so you should add exponentially more complexity to make them cheaper" is obviously a non-starter. And yes, the indestructible objects item was a low point:
"Ideally, let's just get rid of invulnerable structures, period... Giving players the freedom to re-shape terrain does create certain challenges, but not as many as you might think. There's a reason why soldiers in the real world don't go around firing rocket launchers inside of buildings or hurling blocks of C4 at the opposing side.... At the same time, destructible environments open up more avenues for players to experiment and have fun inside the game."
Translation: Players must be able to blow up literally everything, including entire buildings. It's OK because even if you spend the colossal effort to make it possible, players won't do it because there are drawbacks. Except that players definitely will do it because it's fun.
Totally incoherent.
"I'm sure that's happened as well."
[Citation needed.] The burden of proof is on you to show evidence for such a case.
And yet, to date, not a single parent has failed to allow TSA to grope their children when so demanded.
Those things can be ordered in time without being mapped to space.
(Especially if you don't have written language yet.)
"And if there are 3 or fewer hunters initially than the scenario's impossible."
Not if, after all 4 leave, at least 2 go back.
Yes, here in the USA it definitely works differently than how you describe. No order from any judge is necessary. Property can be seized by law enforcement even without any of those findings. If you're up for it, then maybe you can pay tens of thousands of dollars for a lawyer to bring suit any maybe-if-you're-lucky get it back (noting of course that usually makes the prospect a net loss anyway).
Also note: The USA has already applied this to foreign banks in several cases when transfers at some point were made in units of U.S. currency.
I think you missed the point about "The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime". There were recent cases of (a) two hispanic guys sent to buy land for a new church, and (b) a waitress who got a particularly large tip, who had all of their money confiscated under these laws.
Pretty clearly, any Ross Perot Jr. has got to be the son of *somebody* named Ross Perot. (gp's point).
But the summary could indeed have warranted specification of "Ross Perot Jr. (son of the billionaire businessman)" (your point)
Consider: Asset Forfeiture in the United States -- "Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#Asset_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
To date, usually done on physical stuff like cash, cars, or houses -- but seems like a small step to bank accounts.
"admirable" -- able to be admired.
"They do not understand the basic foundations of any other viewpoint. It has been demonstrated in many studies - conservatives can pass a 'Turing test' and pretend to be a believable liberal; Liberals cannot pass the same test pretending to be conservatives."
I would like to see a citation for this. Personally, I have no difficulty "turning conservative" for a few minutes at a time and freaking out my liberal friends (as satire). Neither does Steven Colbert, for example (who's made a career out of it, of course).
Oh god, please. Compare to this case in Baltimore from just last month: BPD is hauled into court by the ACLU for routinely arresting people when they video police, under wiretapping statutes. Three days before the court hearing, BPD announces that they concede that people shouldn't be arrested for photography -- but within the same day, BPD are still arresting people taking video: except the charge has now magically changed to loitering.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bal-in-federal-hill-citizens-allowed-to-record-police-but-then-theres-loitering-20120211,0,3706866.story
The police departments are very consciously corrupting the law to benefit themselves, doing everything they can to delay and obstruct justice, and prosecutors are helping them along. If they get definitively slapped down in court for one thing, then within 24 hours they come up with brand-new bogus legal readings and go on with their abusive behavior unchanged. This is not remotely a "decision beyond their capability" one-time accident.
Suggest: min(a,b)
"wonders why this decades-old empirical observation goes seemingly completely unnoticed"
It's a statistical truth: You can do months, even years of carefully detailed observations, data collecting, and statistical analysis. Then when you present the results to your boss or client, if it's counter to their preconceived notions, they will respond: "Hey, fuck off." And likely hire new analysts.
See also: How the pharmaceutical industry gets new drugs approved (FDA requires two positives studies; any number of negative studies are ignored).
Well put.
I'm also convinced that this is also the resolution to the Fermi Paradox: Intelligent species wipe themselves out with technology.
Yes. (It also synchs up with the xkcd offering, at least for the first case.) The way math goes though, I'll be surprised if your correct comment gets higher-modded than the incorrect one.
Easier: Just take people randomly until your monthly arrest quota is met.
In the post title. Thanks for your attention.
Right -- I think that must have originally been written in the brief strong-union era when weekly work hours were actually going down.
Or maybe it's the hope of the inventors, and then they and the rest of us later get robbed by banker-types.