If freedom of speech were a pre-existing right, it wouldn't need a legal means to protect it.
What does pre-existing right mean anyway? It's a nonsensical concept for a law to exist before it is conceived. At most a law might be retconned, if a court issues a ruling that the law should always have been interpreted a certain way.
I think that ISIS are a lot more scared of the real bombs, and also very happy indeed that America is too war-weary and politically divided to commit more than a tiny fraction of their military resources to the region.
I'm also sure that half the world's intelligence services are already playing that game. If the US tries to tap ISIS communications they'll have to find somewhere to squeeze in their bugs alongside the British, French, Israeli, Syrian, Russian, Iranian, German, Saudi Arabian, Turkish, Chinese and Iraqi ones. If you get any more people trying to listen in you'll run out of monitor ports on the switches. This announcement isn't about monitoring communications - that is not something one brags about openly.
They don't, for the same reason feminists on the internet don't go after any one of the several Islamic countries with oppressive laws or culture towards women: That would require serious effort and an investment of time and money, and a considerable personal risk. It's much easier to just post about more local issues online - that way you get the feel-good smugness of trying to make the world better, and you don't even have to learn another language.
I'm at least honest. I could learn Arabic and join some forums from that country. I could even learn Arabic, get on a plane, join a protest and get thrown in jail for a while before they deport me - maybe even get some lashes thrown in, which would generate great PR for the cause when I got home. But, as I freely, admit, I just don't care enough to sacrifice my own happiness for any cause. However noble.
Because it takes a lot of dedicated people pushing very hard to overcome the 'eww' factor. Look at interracial relationships or homosexuality - the time scale for such changes is in decades, and there were a lot more people pushing for those to become acceptable. Perhaps one day society will be ready to debate that subject, but not today.
Let's flip it around though: Rather than a multinational corporation, the business is a more local affair operating in a small part of, say, Alabama. Word gets out that you have a gay CEO, and the local church groups start putting out scare stories attacking his morality, claiming the company is somehow endangering children and seeks to destroy churches, the usual - fringe homophobic stuff, but this is the deep south and the majority of the local population love that kind of thing. Their boycott is actually harming the business seriously - customers are canceling orders, employees are resigning, and the owner of one of your offices will no longer rent them. Now it's a different question: Will you throw him under the bus to save the business, and comply with local customs? Or will you sacrifice commercial interests to make a moral stand, even if it means losing business?
This sort of thing can come up on a much larger scale - multinational corporations do business in places like Iran, or Saudi Arabia. What happens if you have an openly gay manager who is the most qualified person to take on a position as head of sales? You could appoint him, yes, but then you'll see your Iranian suppliers cancel contracts in protest, and you won't be able to send him over there in person without risking arrest. It's not something widely spoken of, but you can be sure any multinational will think carefully before sending a woman to a conference in Saudi Arabia - the country does make some concessions in their strict sex-segregation rules for visitors, but it's still a risk.
People are, in large part, judgemental bigots who love to condemn anyone different from themselves, and especially to claim the moral high ground for themselves in doing so. That is human nature, and sometimes business owners have to accept this and remember that their purpose is to turn a profit, not social reform.
"You are free to not go into the pizza place that's owned by the gay black guy."
Currently true, but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue. It posed a serious problem back in the days racism was socially acceptable: A black man might have been able legally to open a business in a majority-white community, but if most of the locals refused to go there that business would soon go under. The power of a boycott is to express disapproval through commercial pressure, and it works just as well for the other side as it does for your own. We still see it today in the many (mostly ineffectual) boycotts called for by organisations like the AFA in which they urge supporters not to take their custom to companies that openly hold non-discrimination policies. Their latest one is Target, for some reason I really don't care about.
All of this conversation is pointless if you cannot define liberal or conservative. In US culture they aren't really ideals so much as they are pre-packaged bundles of positions that conveniently align with one of the major parties. That's why you find a strong correlation between people's position on, say, gun control and gay marriage even though there is absolutely nothing to relate these issues. American political culture forces people to pick a side and stick with it.
Plus it'd still need both top and bottom: Top, the 'natural' universe that doesn't need someone to create it. And the 'bottoms' - the universes in which available computational power is too low to host an agent capable of designing and running a simulation.
Even the KKK deserves their freedom of speech. I might support a temporary disruption of service purposes of raising awareness of an issue - the online equivalent of a sit-in protest - but I think everyone is already aware that the KKK exists.
You don't need to simulate the whole universe. You need to simulate the earth, and out to the boundary of the solar system. Then you just need a 'StarSim' program that presents a simplified model beyond that, which is just accurate enough to fool any observers on the planet.
Apologetics usually breaks down into two steps: 1. Arguments that there is some God-like creator intelligence, or possibly multiple intelligences. 2. Arguments that this vaguely-defined entity is the same as the one worshipped by a specific religion.
This field can, at best, get you half-way to a religion.
Not infinite. He is just suggesting a very, very large but finite stack. We do not know our place in the stack, but the odds of being the one on the bottom are pretty remote.
I read right-wind media, so I understand their attitude. It's the protestant work ethic: Work brings moral improvement, dignity and independence. Benefits are regarded as akin to slavery, because giving people money makes them dependant upon the government and deprives them of the moral improvement and dignity that only hard work can bring.
Thorium makes great promises. I'll consider it a viable option when I see one operating commercially. There are a number of research reactors in operation, but the technology isn't yet ready for production. Not quite.
Some states sell exclusive water catchment rights to utility companies - all the land rain that falls within a defined area (typically the catchment basin for a river, for convenient consolidation) belongs to that company. If you catch it in a barrel then you are stealing from the water company. You're supposed to get the water back from the utility pipe so they can sell it to you legitimately.
It's not intended as a means to kill rain barrels, that's just a secondary effect. The prior appropriation system in the western states was introduced to address disputes between landowners sharing a common river - if you depend on a river to irrigate your farm, and someone upstream diverts it on their land to irrigate their own farm or supply a town or industry, it's very bad for your business. To handle this states started requiring permits to collect or utilise water, which made it possible to regulate the scarce resource so downstream users would not be completely deprived. Individuals collecting water for personal use are not really the targets - it is simply that collecting without a permit is illegal, and their operation is too small to qualify for a permit. Prosecutions of individuals are very rare: Even though collecting rainwater in a barrel is technically illegal, law enforcement have more important crimes to go after.
Standard process: Appointed by president, confirmed by senate. The term is ten years, but in practice almost every single director has left before their term is up. I'm surprised the appointment is not more politically contested, given that the director is in a position to influence what crimes the FBI focuses on and thus to advance either party agenda easily.
If the universe ran on a grid or other regular structure there would be some slight anisotropic effects. Very slight, but laser interferometry is really, really sensitive to things like that. That doesn't mean the universe isn't in some manner a simulation or mathematically defined, only that it doesn't use that particular structure.
My ideal sequel would subvert the mystic crap of the first one. The humans return, and this time they aren't going to dismiss all the talk of goddess and connectedness as hippie nonsense. The planet is connected, they have the data now, and if they can understand it then it ceases to be divine and becomes just a really big neural network. If you can hook a human brain up to a remote body, how hard can it be to enslave a planet?
The executive did mention that the company has PR to think about. Wiping out the natives looks awful back home - the public does not approve of genocide. They could do it if there was no other way, but it's a last-resort option. So last resort they set up the very expensive avatar program in the hope of negotiating a trade deal. An idea which failed because the native culture was sufficiently far from humans that there was nothing humans could offer that they valued.
You could, yes. But there's still a fundamental problem. Flying demands a great deal of power, which is why drones have such short battery life and why this thing is going to guzzle fuel. It might have a niche as a recreational vehicle for the suitably rich, but the running cost means flight is not a viable means of personal transport. If it were, we'd all be commuting in helicopters - they are already mass-produced, but the running cost is just too high for you to built a helepad on your driveway and avoid the traffic jams.
Slashdot Mirror
If freedom of speech were a pre-existing right, it wouldn't need a legal means to protect it.
What does pre-existing right mean anyway? It's a nonsensical concept for a law to exist before it is conceived. At most a law might be retconned, if a court issues a ruling that the law should always have been interpreted a certain way.
I think that ISIS are a lot more scared of the real bombs, and also very happy indeed that America is too war-weary and politically divided to commit more than a tiny fraction of their military resources to the region.
I'm also sure that half the world's intelligence services are already playing that game. If the US tries to tap ISIS communications they'll have to find somewhere to squeeze in their bugs alongside the British, French, Israeli, Syrian, Russian, Iranian, German, Saudi Arabian, Turkish, Chinese and Iraqi ones. If you get any more people trying to listen in you'll run out of monitor ports on the switches. This announcement isn't about monitoring communications - that is not something one brags about openly.
I bet ISIS are quaking in their boots.
That's sarcasm.
They don't, for the same reason feminists on the internet don't go after any one of the several Islamic countries with oppressive laws or culture towards women: That would require serious effort and an investment of time and money, and a considerable personal risk. It's much easier to just post about more local issues online - that way you get the feel-good smugness of trying to make the world better, and you don't even have to learn another language.
I'm at least honest. I could learn Arabic and join some forums from that country. I could even learn Arabic, get on a plane, join a protest and get thrown in jail for a while before they deport me - maybe even get some lashes thrown in, which would generate great PR for the cause when I got home. But, as I freely, admit, I just don't care enough to sacrifice my own happiness for any cause. However noble.
Because it takes a lot of dedicated people pushing very hard to overcome the 'eww' factor. Look at interracial relationships or homosexuality - the time scale for such changes is in decades, and there were a lot more people pushing for those to become acceptable. Perhaps one day society will be ready to debate that subject, but not today.
Let's flip it around though: Rather than a multinational corporation, the business is a more local affair operating in a small part of, say, Alabama. Word gets out that you have a gay CEO, and the local church groups start putting out scare stories attacking his morality, claiming the company is somehow endangering children and seeks to destroy churches, the usual - fringe homophobic stuff, but this is the deep south and the majority of the local population love that kind of thing. Their boycott is actually harming the business seriously - customers are canceling orders, employees are resigning, and the owner of one of your offices will no longer rent them. Now it's a different question: Will you throw him under the bus to save the business, and comply with local customs? Or will you sacrifice commercial interests to make a moral stand, even if it means losing business?
This sort of thing can come up on a much larger scale - multinational corporations do business in places like Iran, or Saudi Arabia. What happens if you have an openly gay manager who is the most qualified person to take on a position as head of sales? You could appoint him, yes, but then you'll see your Iranian suppliers cancel contracts in protest, and you won't be able to send him over there in person without risking arrest. It's not something widely spoken of, but you can be sure any multinational will think carefully before sending a woman to a conference in Saudi Arabia - the country does make some concessions in their strict sex-segregation rules for visitors, but it's still a risk.
People are, in large part, judgemental bigots who love to condemn anyone different from themselves, and especially to claim the moral high ground for themselves in doing so. That is human nature, and sometimes business owners have to accept this and remember that their purpose is to turn a profit, not social reform.
"You are free to not go into the pizza place that's owned by the gay black guy."
Currently true, but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue. It posed a serious problem back in the days racism was socially acceptable: A black man might have been able legally to open a business in a majority-white community, but if most of the locals refused to go there that business would soon go under. The power of a boycott is to express disapproval through commercial pressure, and it works just as well for the other side as it does for your own. We still see it today in the many (mostly ineffectual) boycotts called for by organisations like the AFA in which they urge supporters not to take their custom to companies that openly hold non-discrimination policies. Their latest one is Target, for some reason I really don't care about.
All of this conversation is pointless if you cannot define liberal or conservative. In US culture they aren't really ideals so much as they are pre-packaged bundles of positions that conveniently align with one of the major parties. That's why you find a strong correlation between people's position on, say, gun control and gay marriage even though there is absolutely nothing to relate these issues. American political culture forces people to pick a side and stick with it.
Yes, because there is no authority that can be trusted with the power to declare who is lying.
Plus it'd still need both top and bottom: Top, the 'natural' universe that doesn't need someone to create it. And the 'bottoms' - the universes in which available computational power is too low to host an agent capable of designing and running a simulation.
Even the KKK deserves their freedom of speech. I might support a temporary disruption of service purposes of raising awareness of an issue - the online equivalent of a sit-in protest - but I think everyone is already aware that the KKK exists.
You don't need to simulate the whole universe. You need to simulate the earth, and out to the boundary of the solar system. Then you just need a 'StarSim' program that presents a simplified model beyond that, which is just accurate enough to fool any observers on the planet.
Apologetics usually breaks down into two steps:
1. Arguments that there is some God-like creator intelligence, or possibly multiple intelligences.
2. Arguments that this vaguely-defined entity is the same as the one worshipped by a specific religion.
This field can, at best, get you half-way to a religion.
Not infinite. He is just suggesting a very, very large but finite stack. We do not know our place in the stack, but the odds of being the one on the bottom are pretty remote.
I read right-wind media, so I understand their attitude. It's the protestant work ethic: Work brings moral improvement, dignity and independence. Benefits are regarded as akin to slavery, because giving people money makes them dependant upon the government and deprives them of the moral improvement and dignity that only hard work can bring.
Thorium makes great promises. I'll consider it a viable option when I see one operating commercially. There are a number of research reactors in operation, but the technology isn't yet ready for production. Not quite.
Some states sell exclusive water catchment rights to utility companies - all the land rain that falls within a defined area (typically the catchment basin for a river, for convenient consolidation) belongs to that company. If you catch it in a barrel then you are stealing from the water company. You're supposed to get the water back from the utility pipe so they can sell it to you legitimately.
It's not intended as a means to kill rain barrels, that's just a secondary effect. The prior appropriation system in the western states was introduced to address disputes between landowners sharing a common river - if you depend on a river to irrigate your farm, and someone upstream diverts it on their land to irrigate their own farm or supply a town or industry, it's very bad for your business. To handle this states started requiring permits to collect or utilise water, which made it possible to regulate the scarce resource so downstream users would not be completely deprived. Individuals collecting water for personal use are not really the targets - it is simply that collecting without a permit is illegal, and their operation is too small to qualify for a permit. Prosecutions of individuals are very rare: Even though collecting rainwater in a barrel is technically illegal, law enforcement have more important crimes to go after.
You can dispute the name, but humans are still a mass extinction event.
Standard process: Appointed by president, confirmed by senate. The term is ten years, but in practice almost every single director has left before their term is up. I'm surprised the appointment is not more politically contested, given that the director is in a position to influence what crimes the FBI focuses on and thus to advance either party agenda easily.
There the 'crypto-anarchy' approach, which focuses on solving political issues through technological means. Transparency is a big part of that.
If the universe ran on a grid or other regular structure there would be some slight anisotropic effects. Very slight, but laser interferometry is really, really sensitive to things like that. That doesn't mean the universe isn't in some manner a simulation or mathematically defined, only that it doesn't use that particular structure.
My ideal sequel would subvert the mystic crap of the first one. The humans return, and this time they aren't going to dismiss all the talk of goddess and connectedness as hippie nonsense. The planet is connected, they have the data now, and if they can understand it then it ceases to be divine and becomes just a really big neural network. If you can hook a human brain up to a remote body, how hard can it be to enslave a planet?
The last pocahontas dances with smurfs in fern gully.
The executive did mention that the company has PR to think about. Wiping out the natives looks awful back home - the public does not approve of genocide. They could do it if there was no other way, but it's a last-resort option. So last resort they set up the very expensive avatar program in the hope of negotiating a trade deal. An idea which failed because the native culture was sufficiently far from humans that there was nothing humans could offer that they valued.
You could, yes. But there's still a fundamental problem. Flying demands a great deal of power, which is why drones have such short battery life and why this thing is going to guzzle fuel. It might have a niche as a recreational vehicle for the suitably rich, but the running cost means flight is not a viable means of personal transport. If it were, we'd all be commuting in helicopters - they are already mass-produced, but the running cost is just too high for you to built a helepad on your driveway and avoid the traffic jams.