Defence counsels should focus on the fact that these ruling allow police officers to lie in court to invite the jury to reject the police evidence and go not guilty. A few collapsed trials on that basis could be salutary
Defence Attorney: I understand that your police force may or may not have Stingrays, which you are allowed to lie about if you do have them? Is that correct?
Defence: So when you promise to tell the whole truth, you aren't really saying that, you're saying 'I'm telling as much of the truth as I think I should'. So why should we take ANYTHING you say as the truth?
Defence: I ask you again officer. Is it legal for your police department to mislead a court?
I get your point - but a lot of people who, for example, buy into anti-vax propaganda will miss the point. Admittedly compared with the crasser lies of the fake news surrounding the Trump fiasco, it's a minor detail. But we need to try and be totally clear of any criticism to avoid our credibility being challenged by such characters.
The scientific community has a problem with precise language here. The additional radiation is not 'harmless'; what is true is that the increase is insignificant compared with other risks. Unfortunately our society is deeply irrational about risks - with the result we spend silly amounts of money on preventing some risks, and far too little on others. In that context is it right to lie to people - by saying it's 'harmless' - or should be seek to be more precise? Remember that one of the reasons for Trump's victory is that mainstream politicians and activists are perceived as liars.
One of the basic rules of all engineering, but especially software, is that most bugs are as a result of genuine oversight not incompetence. In the case of Windows, which is a massively complex concoction, it is not a surprise when something weird is found. The test in these circumstances is how much effort the organisation who made the mistake puts into resolving it, not how bad the mistake it.
If I am deceived into being liable for a bill, then I have the right to get the person who deceived me into being liable to pay the bill. This is what Khan is proposing. Personally I think VW should be required to pay 3 times what was stolen from the taxpayers of London - the three times multiple being the standard figure in the Hebrew Bible for a thief to repay.
Humbug. The fact that drugs trials have to be double blind is enable the drug to be tested against the placebo effect in achieving real change. Placebos can, randomly, achieve ridiculous cures. The problem is that it is a random effect, so is inappropriate where there is a better, measurable, alternative. But for chronic diseases where there is no known cure, they are far better than nothing.
Which is why they sulk because there is - as I mentioned my other response - a tendency to want to reject homeopathy despite its powerful placebo effect rather than embrace its success as a placebo.
The fascinating thing about homeopathy is that it is available in the UK free on the NHS. This really upsets our science fundamentalists, who insist that medicine should be 'evidence based' - but then reject the idea that homeopathy as a means of triggering the placebo effect IS evidence based.
'You literally contradicted yourself there. So what do you mean?'
Er - no. The real scandals out there are lies put out by big Pharma to sell their drugs, and such things as the freedom to advertise prescription drugs to the general public. Then we have the issues of big Pharma's ability to get patents to remain effective by buying off generic manufacturers, and generally harassing the release of generics. Those are FAR bigger issues than a few people being confused by amateur homeopaths - as opposed to the proper, regular ones e.g.
Placebo effect works even if patients know they're getting a sham drug
So even if homeopathy is only a way of achieving a placebo effect, it is making a positive contribution to the health of the nation. The fact that it is mumbo-jumbo winds up scientific fundamentalists, who HATE the fact that placebos work. Let's stop buggering about targeting this sort of issue, and address the real scandals out there. (That said, homeopathic treatment for serious diseases where there is a mainstream cure ARE a public danger.)
The reality is that other companies are trying to match Uber in the UK. The problem of course is that Uber has got the momentum, so others are struggling to catch up; although the network advantage isn't as extreme as that which protects Facebook - 'everyone' is on it so you have to be to be in the game - it is still significant.
Uber is regulated under the long existent 'private hire car' regulations, which have never addressed this issue in the past. Its creation now is therefore an attempt to protect a comfortable group in society who makes a nice living out of being taxi drivers, without really earning it.
It's important to understand that the UK 'taxi' market already exists in two forms; the black cab which can be hailed or booked, and 'private hire vehicles', which can only be accessed via an office to which a phone call could be made. This bifurcation is probably 50 years old. When the only phone is a landline, this is very restrictive. When phones become mobile, it's less so, but you are still dependent a vehicle being near you. Now Uber offers automated, easy access - and reduces the bifurcation to very little; you spot the uber car on the screen instead of on the road.
Clearly there is no need for private hire drivers to become more proficient in English than was the case before uber happened, so it seems clear this is pure protectionism by politicians seeking to avoid being haranged or even maltreated by taxi drivers when they use them - which of course they do far more than the rest of us.
The conditions of African Americans in some of the slums of the modern USA are intolerable. But to describe the rule of the British in the 1770s as intolerable is just silly.
'The Constitution's "Full faith and credit" clause, Federal Supremacy, and a "law of the land" legal tradition is how the "New Yorker in New Jersey" issue is handled.'
Very cute; so because it is now catered for under current legal doctrine, the clear issue is put to bed. Whereas the clear legal doctrine of the day - that the Crown in Parliament was the supreme ruler of the territories of the Crown - is not acceptable. Funny that.
"There's also the matter of the Social Contract, binding everyone to the outcome of a vote. Britain broke the contract, rescinding rights already possessed and imposing laws from afar, cutting the colonists out of the decision making process."
At the time Britain made no particular claims to be 'democratic' with 'rights'. The 'rights' were only ever what the law defined by the Crown in Parliament granted - or took away. What you are appealing to - the 'Social Contract' theory - was a new, self serving belief that suited the rebels of the day, along with their support for chattel slavery. It may well be progress that Lockean Social Contract theory has become more popular and chattel slavery less, but BOTH are disputable political / moral theorems.
"Keep in mind, the colonists were British citizens, and had all the rights that entails."
Hmm - dubious. Given the undemocratic nature of the Parliamentary electorate of the time, their rights were quite circumscribed.
' When Britain ceased treating them as citizens, well, the Declaration of Independance covers the response, it's legal and philosophical justification, and lists the grievances that motivated it.'
It offers a figleaf of self justification based on a conveniently self serving modern political philosophy. Marxism is equally a modern political philosophy; most of us wouldn't want to live under an implementation of that, especially one of the Leninist school.
I note you ducked: 'For the record, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of a non-citizen of the USA about not paying taxes quite early in the days of the Republic. Funny that...' as well as my little rant about the consequences of the American rebellion. The most important lesson from history is that we all have skeletons in our cupboards, and there are very few unambiguously positive events in history. Failure to recognise this is a form of idolatry, and like all idolatry, will lead you away from the truth.
I didn't vote for these laws, so I don't have to abide by them... So does that mean that the residents of New Jersey don't have to obey the laws of New York when they visit the Big Apple? For the record, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of a non-citizen of the USA about not paying taxes quite early in the days of the Republic. Funny that...
The colonists in America were there by agreement with the sovereign power - Britain - and so should have obeyed its laws. The refusal to do so had disastrous consequences for African Americans, who were probably enslaved for an extra 30 years, given that slavery was abolished in the British Empire in the 1830s. And then of course the Germans had to be defeated TWICE because the Americans were free to play at isolationism until the consequences of their doing so finally got through to them.
My machine was working, Now it's not. Therefore you have deliberately damaged it. And you are extorting money from me.
If each owner of an affected printer files a local criminal charge against the company, it will be forced to employ lawyers for each court appearance, they will soon be very very poor.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a remarkable achieve to find one in the saving of tens of thousands of lives...
Defence counsels should focus on the fact that these ruling allow police officers to lie in court to invite the jury to reject the police evidence and go not guilty. A few collapsed trials on that basis could be salutary
Defence Attorney: I understand that your police force may or may not have Stingrays, which you are allowed to lie about if you do have them? Is that correct?
Defence: So when you promise to tell the whole truth, you aren't really saying that, you're saying 'I'm telling as much of the truth as I think I should'. So why should we take ANYTHING you say as the truth?
Defence: I ask you again officer. Is it legal for your police department to mislead a court?
etc...
Good point well made...
I get your point - but a lot of people who, for example, buy into anti-vax propaganda will miss the point. Admittedly compared with the crasser lies of the fake news surrounding the Trump fiasco, it's a minor detail. But we need to try and be totally clear of any criticism to avoid our credibility being challenged by such characters.
In a nation of over a BILLION population, 6M is a rounding error.
The scientific community has a problem with precise language here. The additional radiation is not 'harmless'; what is true is that the increase is insignificant compared with other risks. Unfortunately our society is deeply irrational about risks - with the result we spend silly amounts of money on preventing some risks, and far too little on others. In that context is it right to lie to people - by saying it's 'harmless' - or should be seek to be more precise? Remember that one of the reasons for Trump's victory is that mainstream politicians and activists are perceived as liars.
One of the basic rules of all engineering, but especially software, is that most bugs are as a result of genuine oversight not incompetence. In the case of Windows, which is a massively complex concoction, it is not a surprise when something weird is found. The test in these circumstances is how much effort the organisation who made the mistake puts into resolving it, not how bad the mistake it.
Surely that's not good! Such behaviour is only justified if the software developer refuses to do anything about it
The right answer is 'because they've been caught and the others haven't'.
The wrong answer starts with the Dad's Army tune...
https://youtu.be/xfQwHb1pWPE
For example this piece of evidence
http://creation.com/triceratop...
The existence of such material challenges strongly the old earth hypothesis.
If I can make $1m by legally killing a thousand people, should I be allowed to do it?
If I am deceived into being liable for a bill, then I have the right to get the person who deceived me into being liable to pay the bill. This is what Khan is proposing. Personally I think VW should be required to pay 3 times what was stolen from the taxpayers of London - the three times multiple being the standard figure in the Hebrew Bible for a thief to repay.
Humbug. The fact that drugs trials have to be double blind is enable the drug to be tested against the placebo effect in achieving real change. Placebos can, randomly, achieve ridiculous cures. The problem is that it is a random effect, so is inappropriate where there is a better, measurable, alternative. But for chronic diseases where there is no known cure, they are far better than nothing.
Which is why they sulk because there is - as I mentioned my other response - a tendency to want to reject homeopathy despite its powerful placebo effect rather than embrace its success as a placebo.
'What the fuck is a "science fundamantalist"?'
This blog will give you a taste.
https://philosophyisnotaluxury...
The fascinating thing about homeopathy is that it is available in the UK free on the NHS. This really upsets our science fundamentalists, who insist that medicine should be 'evidence based' - but then reject the idea that homeopathy as a means of triggering the placebo effect IS evidence based.
'You literally contradicted yourself there. So what do you mean?'
Er - no. The real scandals out there are lies put out by big Pharma to sell their drugs, and such things as the freedom to advertise prescription drugs to the general public. Then we have the issues of big Pharma's ability to get patents to remain effective by buying off generic manufacturers, and generally harassing the release of generics. Those are FAR bigger issues than a few people being confused by amateur homeopaths - as opposed to the proper, regular ones e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.theguardian.com/sc...
Placebo effect works even if patients know they're getting a sham drug
So even if homeopathy is only a way of achieving a placebo effect, it is making a positive contribution to the health of the nation. The fact that it is mumbo-jumbo winds up scientific fundamentalists, who HATE the fact that placebos work. Let's stop buggering about targeting this sort of issue, and address the real scandals out there. (That said, homeopathic treatment for serious diseases where there is a mainstream cure ARE a public danger.)
The reality is that other companies are trying to match Uber in the UK. The problem of course is that Uber has got the momentum, so others are struggling to catch up; although the network advantage isn't as extreme as that which protects Facebook - 'everyone' is on it so you have to be to be in the game - it is still significant.
There are moments when I'm grateful that I live in the somewhat overregulated UK rather than a libertarian's fantasy!
Uber is regulated under the long existent 'private hire car' regulations, which have never addressed this issue in the past. Its creation now is therefore an attempt to protect a comfortable group in society who makes a nice living out of being taxi drivers, without really earning it.
It's important to understand that the UK 'taxi' market already exists in two forms; the black cab which can be hailed or booked, and 'private hire vehicles', which can only be accessed via an office to which a phone call could be made. This bifurcation is probably 50 years old. When the only phone is a landline, this is very restrictive. When phones become mobile, it's less so, but you are still dependent a vehicle being near you. Now Uber offers automated, easy access - and reduces the bifurcation to very little; you spot the uber car on the screen instead of on the road.
Clearly there is no need for private hire drivers to become more proficient in English than was the case before uber happened, so it seems clear this is pure protectionism by politicians seeking to avoid being haranged or even maltreated by taxi drivers when they use them - which of course they do far more than the rest of us.
The conditions of African Americans in some of the slums of the modern USA are intolerable. But to describe the rule of the British in the 1770s as intolerable is just silly.
If both were to come to a bad end, there would be massive rejoicing...
'The Constitution's "Full faith and credit" clause, Federal Supremacy, and a "law of the land" legal tradition is how the "New Yorker in New Jersey" issue is handled.'
Very cute; so because it is now catered for under current legal doctrine, the clear issue is put to bed. Whereas the clear legal doctrine of the day - that the Crown in Parliament was the supreme ruler of the territories of the Crown - is not acceptable. Funny that.
"There's also the matter of the Social Contract, binding everyone to the outcome of a vote. Britain broke the contract, rescinding rights already possessed and imposing laws from afar, cutting the colonists out of the decision making process."
At the time Britain made no particular claims to be 'democratic' with 'rights'. The 'rights' were only ever what the law defined by the Crown in Parliament granted - or took away. What you are appealing to - the 'Social Contract' theory - was a new, self serving belief that suited the rebels of the day, along with their support for chattel slavery. It may well be progress that Lockean Social Contract theory has become more popular and chattel slavery less, but BOTH are disputable political / moral theorems.
"Keep in mind, the colonists were British citizens, and had all the rights that entails."
Hmm - dubious. Given the undemocratic nature of the Parliamentary electorate of the time, their rights were quite circumscribed.
' When Britain ceased treating them as citizens, well, the Declaration of Independance covers the response, it's legal and philosophical justification, and lists the grievances that motivated it.'
It offers a figleaf of self justification based on a conveniently self serving modern political philosophy. Marxism is equally a modern political philosophy; most of us wouldn't want to live under an implementation of that, especially one of the Leninist school.
I note you ducked: 'For the record, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of a non-citizen of the USA about not paying taxes quite early in the days of the Republic. Funny that...' as well as my little rant about the consequences of the American rebellion. The most important lesson from history is that we all have skeletons in our cupboards, and there are very few unambiguously positive events in history. Failure to recognise this is a form of idolatry, and like all idolatry, will lead you away from the truth.
I didn't vote for these laws, so I don't have to abide by them... So does that mean that the residents of New Jersey don't have to obey the laws of New York when they visit the Big Apple? For the record, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of a non-citizen of the USA about not paying taxes quite early in the days of the Republic. Funny that...
The colonists in America were there by agreement with the sovereign power - Britain - and so should have obeyed its laws. The refusal to do so had disastrous consequences for African Americans, who were probably enslaved for an extra 30 years, given that slavery was abolished in the British Empire in the 1830s. And then of course the Germans had to be defeated TWICE because the Americans were free to play at isolationism until the consequences of their doing so finally got through to them.
Isn't thinking things through fun?
My machine was working, Now it's not. Therefore you have deliberately damaged it. And you are extorting money from me.
If each owner of an affected printer files a local criminal charge against the company, it will be forced to employ lawyers for each court appearance, they will soon be very very poor.