The US can (and does) deny visas to all sorts of people, and for many reasons, including this kind of thing. As do most other countries.
They can... but once someone gets a valid visitor's Visa and comes into the US -- they can't turn around and say you are not allowed to attend any security-related conferences.
The article headline didn't say US to deny Visitors' Visas to Chinese.
Doesn't say anything in there about helping anybody but us. Doesn't say our rules apply (or should be applied) to anybody but us either.
Hi, to be clear. That is a statement ONLY about the people establishing the constitution.
When the PEOPLE established the constitution, we created a government of enumerated powers.
The first amendment doesn't say that it applies to citizens only, AND it does not apply to citizens only.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
PERIOD. There is no exception. it's not "OKAY to attempt to abridge natural right of free speech," as long as your victims are not US citizens. This applies to any person subject to US legal jurisdiction, including foreign nationals.
Also, US citizens still have their free speech rights, even when the recipient of their speech would be a foreign national.
SHALL NOT ABRIDGE, is not a selective or a limited restriction. It applies to congress and the federal government in all circumstances.
Just being on US soil doesn't mean the Constitution applies to you - if it did, it would make it nearly impossible to deport illegal aliens - it would violate several of their Constitutional rights to deport them if the Constitution applied
Not a single of their constitutional rights are violated, if they are deported, because they were caught entering unlawfully.
Constitutional rights do not prevent the prosecution or enforcement of judgements against criminals
On the other hand, if a person has lived in the US and formally purchased or rented land on which they live, then their rights cannot be denied on account of foreign nationality or residing without lawful citizenship.
Bar members of the Chinese military from attending. Even that is purely symbolic.
Someone should tell Obama that in American we don't bar people based on race or nationality alone.
This is all highly unconstitutional. If they are allowed to enter the united states, AND they are not being
arrested or detained, then they have the rights and privileges that those present in the US have...
Including the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to organize and assemble.
The Defcon. and Blackhat conferences are an exercise of free speech rights.
The government cannot lawfully prohibit those conferences or prevent anyone from attending;
doing so is in direct violation of the bill of rights due to interference with and abridgement constitutionally protected activities
and rights and privileges.
You have a 99% chance of being shot by drug dealer
Well... we can start by legalizing drugs, so 'drug dealer' as a profession ends.
Then redirect any police efforts that were being wasted on drug law enforcement to hunting down criminals, so the arrest rate for criminals goes up in probability.
Finally, some incentive system for assistance in the investigation of crime / capture of criminals following their conviction.
No I think the original point is precisely the truth. There is no way a patient could survive a one gram dose of heroin
Your response is bogus. You are claiming their consensus is the truth, without showing why you think the suffering is unacceptably low.
We don't need more examples of low-suffering methods of execution, as there are ample ones available -- including nitrogen asphyxiation, or forced Ethyl Alcohol overdose.
But that seems awfully unfair to the janitor who will have to clean up afterward.
They could assign janitorial duty to the inmates serving short-term sentences there for violent crimes;
in order to help bolster the deterrent affects of the death penalty.
I smell a commercial opportunity here. Would it be unethical to try and use kickstarter for seed funding?;-)
Personally... I think it is unethical to use Kickstarter to fund a commercial enterprise, since your funders don't get fair equity in your business / share of profits for their troubles, while spending their $$$ and still sharing all the risk:-O
Rewards would also be a problem, since you can't hand out SP. Maybe an "adopt a prisoner for more humane execution" program.
Very likely, the patents are in the hand of the same EU companies, and they are as likely to accept selling the patent for execution-related application as they are likely to sell the substance it self.
If they refuse to license their patent; both the state or federal government have the right to seize their patent rights through the use of eminent domain, and then they can hire whatever company they want to make the material.
If you want death penalty "Off with the head" is the only way guaranteed to kill quickly and with no chance of the convict getting out his assigned body bag.
We've had some new inventions since the guillotine.
I believe a pair of small explosive charges strapped to the temples would be equally effective.
1000x this... If someone thinks it's ok for an innocent person to be put to death or that somehow there is some acceptable false-positive rate associated, then they should be next in line to volunteer to be euthanized.
It's not even okay, for an innocent person to be imprisoned.
There is no acceptable rate of people unjustly punished for something they didn't do,
a crime they didn't actually commit, a 'crime' they didn't willingly commit (so-called unwitting accomplices), breach of an unjust law, or 'crime' committed in the resistance against unjust or unlawful actions (e.g. self-defense).
I see you are not a fan of the oral polio vaccine used in most of the world today, and which causes polio in some recipients
Sounds like a good reason to use an injected vaccine.
The polio vaccination I got had to be injected.... how come they are using something oral, if it is more dangerous?
Our legal system is deterrence. Capital punishment is retributive punishment.
The severity of the punishment serves to enhance deterrance.
It also helps discourages family members of dead victims, who feel a need for equal retribution -- I.E. one life for one life, because they can rely on the law to do it. This may reduce the rate of family of victims of crime becoming "criminals" where an earlier criminal is the victim.
There is no evidence that it is a deterrent though. In fact in some places there is more crime. Criminals are real bad about thinking of long term consequences
Perhaps we should have pamphlets that potential crime victims can carry around at all times, and show any criminals that have hurt or are threatening them?
The pamphlets can help remind them about crime not paying, what their chances of eventually getting caught are, and what the consequences will be
The rehabilitation part of incarceration is the exact opposite of the seriousness of the crime: the more serious the crime, the bigger the parts of punishment and protection of society are. This means the rehabilitation will not be a huge part of the sentence. This is especially true in the case of life-without-parole, and in capital cases.
In the more serious crime case... my suggested response is to air drop them on a desert island far from civilization, near shark-infested waters; with 100 gallons of fresh water -- a few hundred days' rations, and place some hazard buoys offshore alerting ships to stay away.
Society will then be effectively protected, and their survival will be up to the prisoner.
That's a pretty severe punishment, but it's roll-back-able - no one's been deprived of life.
No it's not roll-backable; such isolation causes permanent irreparable damage! It's also incredibly cruel.
This is why all punishment programs and methods should require approval from a board of sympathetic medical professionals and psychologists.
Every prisoner; regardless of their crime, should have access to books, media, and at least one sympathetic person to hold polite conversation with and discuss their thoughts, etc.
Anything that generates unnecessary pain of no therapeutic or reformative value should be rejected as excessive cruelty.
You don't understand, a lot of the people who are pro-executions don't want a painless peaceful death; not even when the statistics show that about 1 in 20 people are innocent.
How about this then... a compromise from those who are anti-executions.
An insistence, no an utter demand that it be painless, since painless methods are available and inexpensive, any method of execution that forces a prisoner to undergo pain against their will is both cruel and unusual.
The consensus was that the problem with using nitrogen asphyxiation was that it didn't cause enough suffering.
It's a lame consensus. If they want the prisoner to feel extra pain before they die, they can apply some traditional torture technique that doesn't create excruciating pain like a botched injection does..... such as shooting the prisoner in the foot, or dumping boiling water on their back/abdomen, before applying the nitrogen mask.
The chance of that happening is infinitesimally close to zero.
A statement which would be a lie if stated by a statistician. Since you can't possibly know from the mere composition of the population; the chance of hiring a black person or a white person each time that you hired someone.
It is not as if you were given an opportunity to pick 10000 random people from the population and force them to quit any existing job they might have and come work for you. Your selection of hires is limited to a fraction of the population which is not necessarily related to the composition of the population.
For all you know, the chance of hiring a black person could be 99.99% each of the 10000 times.
Again, because most of the applicants seeking employment were black, and all non-black applicants were either not qualified for the job, or they were working for someone else and either not looking for a job: or looking for a job with better compensation than what you were offering.
But if you have a workforce of 10,000, and none of them are black, then you might need to explain how that could have happened without systematic racism.
10,000 is not a statistically significant fraction of the population. So you could very well have hired 10,000 people and all of them turned out to be black by luck of the draw.
One 10000 person sample out of 10s of millions of people living in the area.
The standard deviation of the composition of such samples may well be 90% or more;
especially, once you consider the assumption of random selection is not warranted.
You might have posted job ads in a local paper, and all the applicants turned out to be white males. Although you do not ask applicants for this information, to make sure it is not available to HR when selecting applicants.
The article summary appears to misrepresent the situation.
The retailer began refusing orders late Thursday for coming Hachette books, including J.K. Rowling's new novel.
They made it sound like JK Rowling's novel is on the market and Amazon deleted its page. That's not the case. Amazon kept the page intact, but they stopped accepting PRE-ORDERS
The publisher wants them to start taking orders for an item that is not even available to ship yet, because the publisher has not released it yet.
Again.. the page says in stock and available to order.
Anne Rivers Siddons's new novel, The Girls of August, coming in July, no longer has a page for the physical book or even the Kindle edition.
A page for the physical book came right up, when I searched for it;
stating unavailable with an option to e-mail me when it becomes available.
I think it's clear that what we have here is a MARKETING dispute.
For one reason or another; Amazon has decided to stop collecting pre-orders on some books.
Perhaps because the Publisher has not signed the proper contracts or made the proper agreements with Amazon, required for them to offer that publisher's books on a pre-order basis.
Unless there is some possibility of quick recovery from this, I would have to go with some of the others and recommend the painful
If there is a reasonable possibility of recovery to a livable standard (ability to effectively communicate), even after 12 months; abandoning care, assisted suicide, or pulling the plug shouldn't even be an option --- any medical pro. taking it as an option in that case is breaking their oath about not doing harm.
This should be a judgement call involving the agreement of at least 2 skilled neurosurgeons, before it is deemed no good chance of recovery.
I understand that recovery can be long and hard and eventually require great effort and exhaustion on both professionals as well as from the patient.
But that's what should be required
If it's not required; the patient is likely to be a victim of circumstances..... it's much easier when in agony or irrational to say "please just kill me now."
I thought it was the blinking that was the problem, but it's the whole eye control, not just the blink.
Perhaps the eye control is tiring now but will get less tiring over time.
I have to think some healing is possible.... if not further technological enhancements in the field of cybernetics in the future to augment the brain stem with electronics or help regenerate damaged parts.
I'll bet you a dogecoin he believed he was clever enough not to leave any traces back to himself.
When an IT employee is being terminated.... if an IT security incident or disaster occurs soon before or soon after they leave, then more likely on not there is going to be a burden of proof resting on the former employee to show that they WEREN'T responsible for it, because the circumstantial evidence will invariably show guilt.
Offshore companies like AnyDVD are not untouchable.
It's just a question of how long it takes various parties to get around to going through the extra
effort of committing resources to 'touch' them.
And now that this company has been mentioned by naw in a Slashdot article, they are now a bigger target.
So what's the next shakedown target in this game of "citizens vs government"?
A driverless car is a luxury, so tax it based on mileage, require real-time reporting, and distribute revenue to whichever locality controls the roads on which it is driven.
The tax should be sized to completely make up for the lost ticket revenue, AND to also fund government infrastructure improvements
that will enhance the performance, safety, and convenience of driverless vehicles.
Slashdot Mirror
The US can (and does) deny visas to all sorts of people, and for many reasons, including this kind of thing. As do most other countries.
They can... but once someone gets a valid visitor's Visa and comes into the US -- they can't turn around and say you are not allowed to attend any security-related conferences.
The article headline didn't say US to deny Visitors' Visas to Chinese.
Doesn't say anything in there about helping anybody but us. Doesn't say our rules apply (or should be applied) to anybody but us either.
Hi, to be clear. That is a statement ONLY about the people establishing the constitution. When the PEOPLE established the constitution, we created a government of enumerated powers.
The first amendment doesn't say that it applies to citizens only, AND it does not apply to citizens only.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
PERIOD. There is no exception. it's not "OKAY to attempt to abridge natural right of free speech," as long as your victims are not US citizens. This applies to any person subject to US legal jurisdiction, including foreign nationals.
Also, US citizens still have their free speech rights, even when the recipient of their speech would be a foreign national. SHALL NOT ABRIDGE, is not a selective or a limited restriction. It applies to congress and the federal government in all circumstances.
Just being on US soil doesn't mean the Constitution applies to you - if it did, it would make it nearly impossible to deport illegal aliens - it would violate several of their Constitutional rights to deport them if the Constitution applied
Not a single of their constitutional rights are violated, if they are deported, because they were caught entering unlawfully. Constitutional rights do not prevent the prosecution or enforcement of judgements against criminals
On the other hand, if a person has lived in the US and formally purchased or rented land on which they live, then their rights cannot be denied on account of foreign nationality or residing without lawful citizenship.
Bar members of the Chinese military from attending. Even that is purely symbolic. Someone should tell Obama that in American we don't bar people based on race or nationality alone.
This is all highly unconstitutional. If they are allowed to enter the united states, AND they are not being arrested or detained, then they have the rights and privileges that those present in the US have...
Including the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to organize and assemble.
The Defcon. and Blackhat conferences are an exercise of free speech rights. The government cannot lawfully prohibit those conferences or prevent anyone from attending; doing so is in direct violation of the bill of rights due to interference with and abridgement constitutionally protected activities and rights and privileges.
You have a 99% chance of being shot by drug dealer
Well... we can start by legalizing drugs, so 'drug dealer' as a profession ends.
Then redirect any police efforts that were being wasted on drug law enforcement to hunting down criminals, so the arrest rate for criminals goes up in probability.
Finally, some incentive system for assistance in the investigation of crime / capture of criminals following their conviction.
No I think the original point is precisely the truth. There is no way a patient could survive a one gram dose of heroin
Your response is bogus. You are claiming their consensus is the truth, without showing why you think the suffering is unacceptably low.
We don't need more examples of low-suffering methods of execution, as there are ample ones available -- including nitrogen asphyxiation, or forced Ethyl Alcohol overdose.
But that seems awfully unfair to the janitor who will have to clean up afterward.
They could assign janitorial duty to the inmates serving short-term sentences there for violent crimes; in order to help bolster the deterrent affects of the death penalty.
I smell a commercial opportunity here. Would it be unethical to try and use kickstarter for seed funding? ;-)
Personally... I think it is unethical to use Kickstarter to fund a commercial enterprise, since your funders don't get fair equity in your business / share of profits for their troubles, while spending their $$$ and still sharing all the risk :-O
Rewards would also be a problem, since you can't hand out SP. Maybe an "adopt a prisoner for more humane execution" program.
Very likely, the patents are in the hand of the same EU companies, and they are as likely to accept selling the patent for execution-related application as they are likely to sell the substance it self.
If they refuse to license their patent; both the state or federal government have the right to seize their patent rights through the use of eminent domain, and then they can hire whatever company they want to make the material.
If you want death penalty "Off with the head" is the only way guaranteed to kill quickly and with no chance of the convict getting out his assigned body bag.
We've had some new inventions since the guillotine.
I believe a pair of small explosive charges strapped to the temples would be equally effective.
1000x this ... If someone thinks it's ok for an innocent person to be put to death or that somehow there is some acceptable false-positive rate associated, then they should be next in line to volunteer to be euthanized.
It's not even okay, for an innocent person to be imprisoned. There is no acceptable rate of people unjustly punished for something they didn't do, a crime they didn't actually commit, a 'crime' they didn't willingly commit (so-called unwitting accomplices), breach of an unjust law, or 'crime' committed in the resistance against unjust or unlawful actions (e.g. self-defense).
I see you are not a fan of the oral polio vaccine used in most of the world today, and which causes polio in some recipients
Sounds like a good reason to use an injected vaccine. The polio vaccination I got had to be injected.... how come they are using something oral, if it is more dangerous?
Our legal system is deterrence. Capital punishment is retributive punishment.
The severity of the punishment serves to enhance deterrance.
It also helps discourages family members of dead victims, who feel a need for equal retribution -- I.E. one life for one life, because they can rely on the law to do it. This may reduce the rate of family of victims of crime becoming "criminals" where an earlier criminal is the victim.
There is no evidence that it is a deterrent though. In fact in some places there is more crime. Criminals are real bad about thinking of long term consequences
Perhaps we should have pamphlets that potential crime victims can carry around at all times, and show any criminals that have hurt or are threatening them?
The pamphlets can help remind them about crime not paying, what their chances of eventually getting caught are, and what the consequences will be
The rehabilitation part of incarceration is the exact opposite of the seriousness of the crime: the more serious the crime, the bigger the parts of punishment and protection of society are. This means the rehabilitation will not be a huge part of the sentence. This is especially true in the case of life-without-parole, and in capital cases.
In the more serious crime case... my suggested response is to air drop them on a desert island far from civilization, near shark-infested waters; with 100 gallons of fresh water -- a few hundred days' rations, and place some hazard buoys offshore alerting ships to stay away.
Society will then be effectively protected, and their survival will be up to the prisoner.
That's a pretty severe punishment, but it's roll-back-able - no one's been deprived of life.
No it's not roll-backable; such isolation causes permanent irreparable damage! It's also incredibly cruel.
This is why all punishment programs and methods should require approval from a board of sympathetic medical professionals and psychologists.
Every prisoner; regardless of their crime, should have access to books, media, and at least one sympathetic person to hold polite conversation with and discuss their thoughts, etc.
Anything that generates unnecessary pain of no therapeutic or reformative value should be rejected as excessive cruelty.
You don't understand, a lot of the people who are pro-executions don't want a painless peaceful death; not even when the statistics show that about 1 in 20 people are innocent.
How about this then... a compromise from those who are anti-executions.
An insistence, no an utter demand that it be painless, since painless methods are available and inexpensive, any method of execution that forces a prisoner to undergo pain against their will is both cruel and unusual.
The consensus was that the problem with using nitrogen asphyxiation was that it didn't cause enough suffering.
It's a lame consensus. If they want the prisoner to feel extra pain before they die, they can apply some traditional torture technique that doesn't create excruciating pain like a botched injection does..... such as shooting the prisoner in the foot, or dumping boiling water on their back/abdomen, before applying the nitrogen mask.
The chance of that happening is infinitesimally close to zero.
A statement which would be a lie if stated by a statistician. Since you can't possibly know from the mere composition of the population; the chance of hiring a black person or a white person each time that you hired someone.
It is not as if you were given an opportunity to pick 10000 random people from the population and force them to quit any existing job they might have and come work for you. Your selection of hires is limited to a fraction of the population which is not necessarily related to the composition of the population.
For all you know, the chance of hiring a black person could be 99.99% each of the 10000 times.
Again, because most of the applicants seeking employment were black, and all non-black applicants were either not qualified for the job, or they were working for someone else and either not looking for a job: or looking for a job with better compensation than what you were offering.
But if you have a workforce of 10,000, and none of them are black, then you might need to explain how that could have happened without systematic racism.
10,000 is not a statistically significant fraction of the population. So you could very well have hired 10,000 people and all of them turned out to be black by luck of the draw.
One 10000 person sample out of 10s of millions of people living in the area. The standard deviation of the composition of such samples may well be 90% or more; especially, once you consider the assumption of random selection is not warranted.
You might have posted job ads in a local paper, and all the applicants turned out to be white males. Although you do not ask applicants for this information, to make sure it is not available to HR when selecting applicants.
The article summary appears to misrepresent the situation.
The retailer began refusing orders late Thursday for coming Hachette books, including J.K. Rowling's new novel.
They made it sound like JK Rowling's novel is on the market and Amazon deleted its page. That's not the case. Amazon kept the page intact, but they stopped accepting PRE-ORDERS
The publisher wants them to start taking orders for an item that is not even available to ship yet, because the publisher has not released it yet.
The paperback edition of Brad Stone's The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon — a book Amazon disliked so much it denounced it — is suddenly listed as 'unavailable.
Again.. the page says in stock and available to order.
Anne Rivers Siddons's new novel, The Girls of August, coming in July, no longer has a page for the physical book or even the Kindle edition.
A page for the physical book came right up, when I searched for it; stating unavailable with an option to e-mail me when it becomes available.
I think it's clear that what we have here is a MARKETING dispute. For one reason or another; Amazon has decided to stop collecting pre-orders on some books. Perhaps because the Publisher has not signed the proper contracts or made the proper agreements with Amazon, required for them to offer that publisher's books on a pre-order basis.
Unless there is some possibility of quick recovery from this, I would have to go with some of the others and recommend the painful
If there is a reasonable possibility of recovery to a livable standard (ability to effectively communicate), even after 12 months; abandoning care, assisted suicide, or pulling the plug shouldn't even be an option --- any medical pro. taking it as an option in that case is breaking their oath about not doing harm.
This should be a judgement call involving the agreement of at least 2 skilled neurosurgeons, before it is deemed no good chance of recovery.
I understand that recovery can be long and hard and eventually require great effort and exhaustion on both professionals as well as from the patient.
But that's what should be required
If it's not required; the patient is likely to be a victim of circumstances..... it's much easier when in agony or irrational to say "please just kill me now."
I thought it was the blinking that was the problem, but it's the whole eye control, not just the blink.
Perhaps the eye control is tiring now but will get less tiring over time.
I have to think some healing is possible.... if not further technological enhancements in the field of cybernetics in the future to augment the brain stem with electronics or help regenerate damaged parts.
I'll bet you a dogecoin he believed he was clever enough not to leave any traces back to himself.
When an IT employee is being terminated.... if an IT security incident or disaster occurs soon before or soon after they leave, then more likely on not there is going to be a burden of proof resting on the former employee to show that they WEREN'T responsible for it, because the circumstantial evidence will invariably show guilt.
Offshore companies like AnyDVD are not untouchable. It's just a question of how long it takes various parties to get around to going through the extra effort of committing resources to 'touch' them.
And now that this company has been mentioned by naw in a Slashdot article, they are now a bigger target.
So what's the next shakedown target in this game of "citizens vs government"?
A driverless car is a luxury, so tax it based on mileage, require real-time reporting, and distribute revenue to whichever locality controls the roads on which it is driven.
The tax should be sized to completely make up for the lost ticket revenue, AND to also fund government infrastructure improvements that will enhance the performance, safety, and convenience of driverless vehicles.