What if you shoot the guys dog, that just escaped over the border into England? Will Scottish law apply just because the alleged 'victim' was Scottish?
The funny thing is that long queues are (at least partially) the result of allowing doctors to compete with their own employers.
For example: In my country there is the public option, where you might have to wait a few weeks for a specialist exam. OR you could pay and have the same doctor see you next day as a for-pay service. And doctors suddenly become much more efficient once they finish with their regular jobs, and move to serving their private customers.
The government seems determined to implement a US-like system, even though the was it used to be was better.
I think the point is not in applying your own laws to other countries, but to your own citizens that happen to be located in other countries. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that. There may be something wrong with specific laws that you plant to enforce, but the principle of holding your citizens responsible for their actions even when they are abroad seems reasonable to me. If people don't want to follow the laws of a specific country then they can renounce their citizenship and move away.
Let me give you an example where only local laws need to be followed: An African country has a revolution, and the new government declares all of the supporters of the old regime no longer have any rights, and shooting them is allowed. A group of bored US billionares decides to organize a 'human safari' in this country, then return back home with tales of the wonderful time they had, as well as pictures of the old president that they shot. The US government does nothing, since all of their actions were legal in the country they were done.
Will the soldiers be told who they are nuking? Can the launch operators see what their missile is targeted at, or can this information be faked?
Imagine a soldier gets the news that N Korea just nuked S Korea and Japan, and is ordered to launch his nuke, which then just happens to 'miss' and hit California.
Nah, that would just create more orphans for the government to take care of. And if you wait for the children to grow up, the parent's organs are likely to be worthless from years of abuse.
How about setting minimal standards for child care? Anyone not meeting looses custody of their children AND has to work community service taking care of other children.
Well that's the question. Were the current rules even followed? Sure the system is currently for profit, but there are an infinite number of 'levels' this for profit orientation can take. Is a doctor allowed to take a 'gift' from a patient, then give that patient preferential treatment over another patient? Just saying the system is for profit, therefore everything that results in profit is OK is a strange way of looking at things.
There is nothing wrong with that system. Just make the legislators pass laws allowing it, BEFORE you secretly implement it. I'm sure the guys who vote for it will have no trouble getting re-elected*. I guess we can then start passing laws for mandatory abortions for people under certain personal wealth? After all, the minorities are taking over! Why should they get to take up the limited resources of our country, when there are so many more deserving (and wealthy) people.
*This was supposes to be a joke, but the more I thought about it the more worried I became that it might just be true.
And why not let people supply their own organs? Just imagine all those people needing transplants walking into hospitals with organs in bags full of ice, and their hands only slightly covered by blood.
As for encouraging donations, why not have people sign up (or not) when they reach 18. They get to decide if they want to donate after their death or no. If they choose no, they are moved to the bottom of the list if they ever need an organ. After all, if their religion or other beliefs prevents them from donating, it must surely also prevent them from recieving.
Considering the rules of the UN, that's mostly the only thing they CAN do. The security council would nearly every other thing the general assembly tried to do. It's hard to find a project that none of the permanent members are against.
There ARE plenty of competent managers around. They just never get to the position of CEO, since they don't spend enough of their time backstabbing their coworkers.
It's more like promising the terrorists that, if they surrender without hurting anyone, they're going to get a trial before getting executed, instead of being lined up and shot as soon as they surrender.
The end result is the same, but it does make it much more likely that the innocent will survive.
Considering they are scammers, I don't think they need your information in order to sell it. They can just randomly generate some authentic looking 'facts' and sell those.
I wonder how many people who fail high school can then go to medical school. Probably not many, unless they have insanely rich parents - which rules out the illegal immigrants and fruit pickers.
Were the founding fathers trying to say that everyone is the same in abilities, or that there are no predetermined castes - no one should have more rights under the law just because he/she was born to the 'right' parents?
What if the person who punched you has moved away in the time it took you to turn around and you punch the guy that was standing behind him? Not only did you not reduce the number of people attacking you, but, if everyone acted like you, you now have one more person wanting to kick your ass.
They are forbidden (by Monsanto) from using the seeds, they are not unable to use them. But imagine what would happen if they planted the seeds, but no plants grew. No harvest at all that year. I'm pretty sure Monsanto would go bankrupt quickly if things like that happened (not that I think that one less Evil corporation would be a bad thing).
Sterility might be difficult. If plants don't flower and pollinate themselves, then there will be no seeds. So the sterility has to happen in the seed - it must be incapable of producing a viable plant. But what happens if the pollen from one of these plants pollinates a 'natural' plant? Just imagine the outcry if neighboring farmers are unable to use their own seeds for planting next year.
Slashdot Mirror
What if you shoot the guys dog, that just escaped over the border into England? Will Scottish law apply just because the alleged 'victim' was Scottish?
Just get a few Microsoft employees to pirate stuff on their work computers. After all, corporations are people too.
The funny thing is that long queues are (at least partially) the result of allowing doctors to compete with their own employers.
For example:
In my country there is the public option, where you might have to wait a few weeks for a specialist exam. OR you could pay and have the same doctor see you next day as a for-pay service. And doctors suddenly become much more efficient once they finish with their regular jobs, and move to serving their private customers.
The government seems determined to implement a US-like system, even though the was it used to be was better.
It was too socialist, so it was removed from the bill.
So insurance agencies will respond to increased competition by raising prices? Isn't this kind of backward?
I think the point is not in applying your own laws to other countries, but to your own citizens that happen to be located in other countries. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that. There may be something wrong with specific laws that you plant to enforce, but the principle of holding your citizens responsible for their actions even when they are abroad seems reasonable to me. If people don't want to follow the laws of a specific country then they can renounce their citizenship and move away.
Let me give you an example where only local laws need to be followed:
An African country has a revolution, and the new government declares all of the supporters of the old regime no longer have any rights, and shooting them is allowed. A group of bored US billionares decides to organize a 'human safari' in this country, then return back home with tales of the wonderful time they had, as well as pictures of the old president that they shot. The US government does nothing, since all of their actions were legal in the country they were done.
Will the soldiers be told who they are nuking? Can the launch operators see what their missile is targeted at, or can this information be faked?
Imagine a soldier gets the news that N Korea just nuked S Korea and Japan, and is ordered to launch his nuke, which then just happens to 'miss' and hit California.
It's not just that there are no penalties. The accused will only get to defend themselves if they fork over a 20 pound fee.
Nah, that would just create more orphans for the government to take care of. And if you wait for the children to grow up, the parent's organs are likely to be worthless from years of abuse.
How about setting minimal standards for child care? Anyone not meeting looses custody of their children AND has to work community service taking care of other children.
Well that's the question. Were the current rules even followed? Sure the system is currently for profit, but there are an infinite number of 'levels' this for profit orientation can take. Is a doctor allowed to take a 'gift' from a patient, then give that patient preferential treatment over another patient? Just saying the system is for profit, therefore everything that results in profit is OK is a strange way of looking at things.
There is nothing wrong with that system. Just make the legislators pass laws allowing it, BEFORE you secretly implement it. I'm sure the guys who vote for it will have no trouble getting re-elected*. I guess we can then start passing laws for mandatory abortions for people under certain personal wealth? After all, the minorities are taking over! Why should they get to take up the limited resources of our country, when there are so many more deserving (and wealthy) people.
*This was supposes to be a joke, but the more I thought about it the more worried I became that it might just be true.
And why not let people supply their own organs? Just imagine all those people needing transplants walking into hospitals with organs in bags full of ice, and their hands only slightly covered by blood.
As for encouraging donations, why not have people sign up (or not) when they reach 18. They get to decide if they want to donate after their death or no. If they choose no, they are moved to the bottom of the list if they ever need an organ. After all, if their religion or other beliefs prevents them from donating, it must surely also prevent them from recieving.
Considering the rules of the UN, that's mostly the only thing they CAN do. The security council would nearly every other thing the general assembly tried to do. It's hard to find a project that none of the permanent members are against.
There ARE plenty of competent managers around. They just never get to the position of CEO, since they don't spend enough of their time backstabbing their coworkers.
It's more like promising the terrorists that, if they surrender without hurting anyone, they're going to get a trial before getting executed, instead of being lined up and shot as soon as they surrender.
The end result is the same, but it does make it much more likely that the innocent will survive.
Considering they are scammers, I don't think they need your information in order to sell it. They can just randomly generate some authentic looking 'facts' and sell those.
Designed? I thought it was thrown together from whatever was available and didn't offend anyone important.
What if the benefit of fertilizers isn't a monotonous function? What if fertilizer quantity 5 is best, while fertilizer quantity 2 is second best?
I wonder how many people who fail high school can then go to medical school. Probably not many, unless they have insanely rich parents - which rules out the illegal immigrants and fruit pickers.
Were the founding fathers trying to say that everyone is the same in abilities, or that there are no predetermined castes - no one should have more rights under the law just because he/she was born to the 'right' parents?
What if the person who punched you has moved away in the time it took you to turn around and you punch the guy that was standing behind him? Not only did you not reduce the number of people attacking you, but, if everyone acted like you, you now have one more person wanting to kick your ass.
So what happens when people start faking attacks on their server, so they have an excuse to attack their competition?
They are forbidden (by Monsanto) from using the seeds, they are not unable to use them. But imagine what would happen if they planted the seeds, but no plants grew. No harvest at all that year. I'm pretty sure Monsanto would go bankrupt quickly if things like that happened (not that I think that one less Evil corporation would be a bad thing).
Sterility might be difficult. If plants don't flower and pollinate themselves, then there will be no seeds. So the sterility has to happen in the seed - it must be incapable of producing a viable plant. But what happens if the pollen from one of these plants pollinates a 'natural' plant? Just imagine the outcry if neighboring farmers are unable to use their own seeds for planting next year.
But do you still expect California police to stop strangers from beating you up in the street before killing you when you visit the state?