I want people to get as much good as possible. When you start asking questions about what is fair and what is equal, you pull people down, not raise them up.
You had me until the point where you expect me to pay for it.
Oh, come now, let's not forget the strong implication that the person is expecting other people to pay for it. I'm honestly skeptical that the math for a UBI will work out, and some of the psychological issues are going to go unaddressed. It might be better to just go for a long-term version of the WPA--provide the UBI in the form of employment, with some jobs being just plain "get, maintain, and teach these skills that are considered of social (if not economic value), you can do whatever you want with the rest of your time."
Knowing how the government tends to work, you'll get both, and still be needing to hire more clerks for other departments' backups to be taken care of because Reasons.
Firing the unneeded clerks or reassigning them, giving them whatever training they need to do their new task, will be deemed Silly. Some of these clerical jobs may even remain once the person holding them at the time of the switch quits, with the new holder of the job being a relative of some highly-placed official or donor.
Bureaucracies are worse than cockroach infestations.
The more money you give to people for free, the less work they'll do.
Interestingly, previous small-scale experiments have not really shown this; time spent working only decreased a small amount, and was mostly replaced with other useful activities (raising children or education). Do you think the previous experiments did not measure this, or do you think the results will not scale?
My guess is the expectation is that the results will not generalize--I suspect a UBI will work relatively well, as long as the group trying it has as a basic cultural expectation that everybody contributes to society. It'll do pretty well in most of Scandinavia, possibly, since they are one of those cultures and there is the basic social expectation that you of course want to contribute to society. In places where works like Steal This Book would even get published? Well, I suppose it'll be quite good for creating an effective one-party state and ensuring they get the votes to keep it looking like a democracy.
If you want something that will be robust, it might be better to identify those jobs that are not part of what we traditionally think of as work but are of value to society, and start providing a stipend to people who do them. Things like taking care of your family is labor, so why do we not treat it as worthy of being paid in some manner?
Sounds about right--part of the entire reason I have those live disks is because I'm not being paid to provide support, and thus prefer to enable DIYing it since I've no incentive to up billable hours. (The other part is that I use them myself.)
So, I take it you're one of these "mellinials"? As for Millennials, many of us have been using computers long enough to have gotten to use Win7 if not older versions such as WinXP, especially since K12 schools can often be expected to have their Win boxes running older versions--those of us at the older end can even remember working with Win3.1.
I've personally worked on everything from command lines to ribbons and honestly have had an easier time with things I had to rely on using badly-documented command lines to get to work than quite a few ribbons. They're a mix of the worst of toolbars and menus, wrapped up with the assumption that the enduser is barely literate in any sense of the word. (I've worked on systems where I wasn't fluent in the OS's language, too. Still a better experience than ribbons.)
You might want to be a bit cautious about calling an entire generation stupid when you can't even spell its name right, especially when browsers typically have built-in spellcheck. I will, though, agree that most of it is--it's just not this stupid outside of the delusions of the people who believe that the current UI trends are a Good Idea.
You're kidding, right? Most of the people I've watched hate Win8+ most are 'melenials'--including myself (from the upper end of it) and people who are designers, some of whom are even willing to do it for $$$. (Design tends to be one of those places where somebody not doing it professionally may be very good at the official skillset but either lacks or doesn't feel they are paid enough to obtain the unofficial required skillset of 'dealing with delusional idiots from management.')
I will admit, the flat UI is nice, but honestly? I am pretty sure somebody's already kicked out the door what I need to get whatever flavor of Linux desktop to have that flat look, without things like tiles unless I decide in a fit of insanity I need those. The ribbons? Actually, really damn annoying, because ribbons seem to be intended to be menus for barely-literates who cannot be trusted with hotkeys either. Just let me customize my toolbar or ribbon or header of buttony goodness so everything I actually need regularly is up there. I want to be able to click (or tap) once and be done.
Honestly, I kind of suspect ribbons are the result of delusional idiots from management, precisely because a lot of the stuff that seems to end up in the ribbon that's most easily gotten at are those things I would expect somebody in middle management to use most often.
I know that you can get MS Office for Macs, so honestly I suspect that the only thing keeping Microsoft from selling a Linux version is a perceived lack of demand, never mind that I suspect it'd take rather little effort to actually get out the door.
That said, my experience with MS Office and LibreOffice is that they're equally good overall--each has different places where they're better or worse, and the problem is that MS Office expects me to pay for a program that's merely differently dysfunctional from what I can use for free. (I'm a bit amused that spellcheck is part of what keeps you in MS Office, because it's actually what drove me to try the FOSS alternative--MS Office's spellcheck was annoyingly hostile to my writing things thick with technical vocabulary, and not that friendly to attempts to get it to learn new words. As for grammar checking...my experience is that neither's really any better at it yet than 'small human paid with bag of candy.')
Anal ventriloquism; impressive. I've switched over hundreds of my clients [who are casual users] from Winblows to Mint over the past six years or so and the less technically adept they are, the more likely they are to benefit.
How, by being tied to you for paid support?
I've run Linux farms, and won't go anywhere else for most application servers, because they can configured perfectly for the task at hand. But user machines need to be prioritised to UI, device compatibility, and familiarity and Linux is horrible by comparison.
I don't expect much agreement in here, but I've worked in several places that allow techy staff (non-MS techies) their own machines (laptop/desktop), and most of them choose Mac or Windows. I know of precisely zero non-techy staff that have even heard of Linux.
There is a reason that the Linux desktop has failed outside a few fringe experiments (like Munich) because it simply doesn't stack up.
I'm not sure how to tell you this, but quite a few casual users I've dealt with have walked off with Linux live disks taken from my emergency stack because of Microsoft's UI decisions from Win8 on--and most seem to be pretty happy with the move.
Admittedly, the flavors in my stack of Linux live disks are deliberately picked to be luser-friendly--it exists so I don't have to be bothered by others' needing data off a hosed OS, or who can't even tell if it's a software or hardware problem. (In the second case, I basically tell them pick a disk, tell me if the computer will boot and if it does, do you still have the problem?)
If they can't manage to get a disk into an optical drive and boot the computer up...well, either that's outright part of what is wrong with the machine and I need to go over with a live USB to continue diagnostics, or I can safely identify where at least one major problem is located and that it is one that cannot be fixed...
From what I've heard and seen as the basic likely amount you're going to get from two years of either type of language in high school, 'not enough of either' is where I'd be betting. (I do know about learning problems. With Japanese--some Japanese broadcasters do, I hear, broadcast over the internet and don't region-lock it, that can often help a lot. I opted to strand myself in Tokyo for a while.)
False; as somebody who speaks multiple languages and can code, I find both have their uses--for one, I chose my languages well as nearly every single STEM field has two major languages, meaning while a decent amount of the lit is in English, you can access pretty much anything of note in the lit by picking up the right not-English language and yes, people will pay for somebody who stacks correctly to just do stuff like make sure that the relevant lit isn't in the language they don't speak or coordinate between research groups. Another, rather interesting thing is that learning a second (human) language improves your overall language skills. Not so much with coding.
The real question ought to be is if you're going to learn enough of either type of language to get much use out of either. (And, frankly, I'd argue for teaching coding from elementary school.) If the answer to is 'not enough of either,' this argument seems silly.
You went "Examples?" in reply to somebody who stated that fact-checkers in general are Bad at it. I prefaced my comment with a conditional saying that I was going with the interpretation that that is what you wanted examples of, since it was the only claim that could possibly want such, and then provided you with evidence that in fact this is a long-term problem whose consequences are becoming significant. I chose older links precisely to minimize the political effects and demonstrate that the problem is not new. About the only significant thing that would likely have changed in what journalistic criticism of fact-checkers might now include discussion of how much their choices in how to redefine 'fact' creatively may be driven by a desire for greater clicks and catering to their presumed audience's biases. (I doubt they'd use the same examples of bad "fact-checking," but that would be relatively minor.)
Because these issues exist as a long-term widespread problem among fact-checkers, it's overall safe to be cautious of any claim they make, even if it's something like "Water is wet."
If you're asking for examples of "what the fact checkers debunk" having a less than optimal relationship with "what was said," it's been something that's been an ongoing problem for years. Here's two examples of critical views of them from 2012, from the Columbia Journalism Review and NPR, and the only thing that appears to have particularly changed much since then is who benefits most from not bringing up the important issue of "Who will fact-check the fact-checkers?"
You are aware that there's thousands of years between the Clovis culture disappearing and Columbus landing? Not only that, but the major thread that seems to be used to claim that the sites belong to a common culture is a technological signature, which... Well, I don't think that particular thing got thought through that well. (Hint: Look at how tech spreads between cultures now...and there's nothing new here.)
You do realize that tribes did in fact compete over territory, right? The rules and taboos weren't necessarily the same as the ones in Europe--population tended to be a lot more valuable so you had things like (forcible) adoptions and wife-stealing with genocides being rare,* but it doesn't really matter what precisely happened if nobody in the area is able to continue the ethnic group.
Sometimes tribes even had internal fights--for example, the Hawaiian people became a unified state (not merely a shared culture) because Kamehameha the Great decided "Fuck this shit" and proceeded to kick ass until they were pretty much completely united. (Europeans were involved, but Kamehameha the Great was the guy in charge, and he very likely did it in part because he realized that a united people would be better able to survive as a people.)
* There's a few sites that damn well look like somebody committed genocide but the only way any Europeans were involved would require time travel.
Pushing out native peoples is not a European invention;
You're missing a critical point, dickhead: That still makes it wrong
No, I'm not missing it, I merely was presuming that the readers' IQs were sufficiently high that explicitly stating the obvious would be an insult to their intelligence. It doesn't need to be a European invention to be wrong, and the person I was replying to was denying that it happened in the Americas...which I suppose I ought to explicitly note is wrong--oh, and inherently racist, not for the least because some of the evidence we've got we have because the Natives themselves told us.
There is a (potential) buyer involved here. It shouldn't be needed, and in fact I'd argue that from an ethics standpoint, it should not include an outside-the-group buyer. (If it's a group of people who have claims who want to buy out the rest, meh.)
There's some pretty famous games that almost certainly only got that rerelease because people kept passing around copies--some of them pirated simply because of how rare the game and/or functional consoles to play it on are--and believe me, any "remastered in HD" treatment for a game that's worth paying a cent for is going to include fixes of bad bugs and quite a few have the remaster announced well ahead of time. A couple I'm waiting to see are promising to do things like get stuff they ran out of time for originally finally in the game--in some cases this means plot holes get properly closed.
There's a whole bunch of IP out there whose rights are tangled in so much red tape that nobody's actually too certain who actually has the right to do something like shove, say, a half-assed transfer or a dump wrapped in an emulator out the door, never mind a "remastered in HD" sort of endeavor. Orphaned works and works that are effectively orphaned are a problem for a reason--and one major improvement to copyright law would be simply to make it so title must be maintained clearly and failure to do so is taken as implicitly releasing it into the public domain.
With your example? It'd have been child's play to ask them directly if they wanted that rehosting set up for them, and I suspect quite easy to throw money at them to obtain copies.
The problem here, however, is that we've got a decent amount of stuff where it's not that easy: where the owners are MIA or unidentifiable.
Actually, if you go through the history of the Americas, you find a lot of records of one group pushing out another, as well as some pretty good evidence that groups did indeed get wiped out. (Proving it tends to require there be written records.) Pushing out native peoples is not a European invention; until modern times it and weather were the driving forces behind all human migrations, and it still drives a lot of migration to this day.
Then the problem is that to generate a clear title, the land must needs be sold. I would think that there would be some process to require those with a claim to either come forward or abandon their claim, without any need for a buyer whatsoever, unless the legal system is pretty much deliberately set up to force the sale of family lands.
Um, actually, the polite translation of haole is 'foreigner.' It's not at all a polite thing to call somebody--it's an outsider who steals from the group, usually feeling entitled to it. (That this is also the word used for all white people should tell you a lot about how Native Hawaiians feel about white people.)
In the US there is more space. Plenty of space for a bidet. Incorporating the bidet function into the toilet seat is just a space saving method that is appropriate for the tiny bathrooms in Japan.
That depends. If you're dealing with somebody out of the tiny house movement, or a house that's just plain lacking in bathrooms with not much space for wedging the ones it needs in? You might end up with a bathroom with a toilet, a sink, and everything tiled so you can use the whole thing as a shower stall. I've looked at an example--the only bathroom the house came with was so insanely laid out that the sole reason to believe that it was, in fact, built into the house was because inside bathrooms had been a thing for a century by the time it was built. (It was basically a secret passage, with various elements of a bathroom tucked into nooks along it and at the very end, instead of treasure, was a toilet.)
Also, honestly, if my choices are 'larger tub,' 'tub and shower seperate,' and 'bidet'? Yeah, let's go with bidet function in the toilet seat, soaking tubs are awesome and if you're sharing the place with somebody who takes eternal soaks or showers like I've been doing? Being able to both bathe at once might be required simply so you get to bathe at all.
I'm not sure how to break this to you, but the heart is inside the body. This goes around the heart. This is an implant, unless the definition of implant has suddenly and inexplicably changed from "stuffs what you open up the body, insert, and leave for some period of time."
Is moving the goalposts your hobby or just a bad habit of yours? These people were pronounced, in a clinical setting, dead as per your request. These people didn't have 'localized circulatory collapse,' they had their heart and breathing stop, and as the paper notes, this is probably an under-reported problem. Moreover, I donno how to break it to you, but O2 consumption monitors work on the assumption that you are experiencing respiration, something that if you are doing when somebody starts CPR on you? They're doing it very wrong.
It seems unlikely for two reasons that O2 consumption monitoring would have not identified these people as dead, anyway. For one, if you'd read the paper, you'd know it explicitly discusses means for detecting Lazarus syndrome without relying on chance. If it'd work, they would suggest it. Perhaps more to the point, several of the cases in the lit suffered the kinds of damage that strongly indicate oxygen deprivation--no respiration was taking place, meaning you'd be unlikely to notice much difference between it and a fresh corpse since the microbes involved in decomposition also consume oxygen. (How do you think vacuum-preservation of meat works, magic?)
Oh, and the paper covers what medical science defines death as though I suppose it might be hard to understand if you don't have a biomedical background. (Here's a bit of help: in asystole the heart isn't even twitching, the heart monitor flatlines, and it is very, very memorable once you've seen it happen. So of course the physio lab on how heart monitors work required we wrap up with flatlining our pithed frog...)
In the first world or the US? Because quite frankly, when it comes to general healthcare, the US isn't quite on par with the first world...
On this, it's an issue of technology and staff training. Third World countries typically fail to have the tech needed but have some pretty skilled health care workers once you adjust for the simple fact that they're working around not having access to high tech; First World countries tend to have what fails be staff training, and sometimes overly-dependent on tech so they may not always think to do such common-sense things as confirm that the heart monitor is not just singing the Broken Machine Blues.
Some of these horror stories don't necessarily get talked about outside of the medical community, since the overall feeling is that the general population is going to distinctly overestimate the chances of it happening to them--but the stories get passed around precisely to remind everybody inside that certain steps might seem pointless but aren't. They're cautionary tales, much the local tale(s) of the fate of whomever thought trying to repair a computer while it was on was a Good Idea.
I could see that problem in the US, in France, there isn't really a financial incentive to the hospital to harvest body parts.
Also, the stories about people waking in the morgue are lovely tales from the crypt, but have little to do with reality, and have not had for at least 100 years now.
Nope, actually, it's just a lot rarer now--in the first world, anyway, and the general expectation now is that it means somebody botched their job. I think the last case was ~25 years ago, was a little old lady, and she was kicking around long enough afterwards to get interviewed. (I didn't catch much about the case, except apparently the fact that they put her in the freezer saved her life.)
Incidentally, it's cases like that which get brought up when somebody suggests being less careful in checking.
As for the issue with brain death--I think the paper discussing the problems getting noticed in correctly determining the amount of brain activity was published in 2015. I would very much enjoy reading it, but it's very much a current and ongoing problem in neuro.
As for financial incentives in France--can't tell you, I don't read French and any reports that go into the inner workings of France's organ donation system are almost certainly going to be in French. I can, however, with great confidence state that both the US and France have them as being supposed to be donations--because both countries are in pretty explicit agreement on payments being unethical--meaning that no financial incentive should exist, period, in either country.
Slashdot Mirror
I want people to get as much good as possible. When you start asking questions about what is fair and what is equal, you pull people down, not raise them up.
You had me until the point where you expect me to pay for it.
Oh, come now, let's not forget the strong implication that the person is expecting other people to pay for it. I'm honestly skeptical that the math for a UBI will work out, and some of the psychological issues are going to go unaddressed. It might be better to just go for a long-term version of the WPA--provide the UBI in the form of employment, with some jobs being just plain "get, maintain, and teach these skills that are considered of social (if not economic value), you can do whatever you want with the rest of your time."
Knowing how the government tends to work, you'll get both, and still be needing to hire more clerks for other departments' backups to be taken care of because Reasons.
Firing the unneeded clerks or reassigning them, giving them whatever training they need to do their new task, will be deemed Silly. Some of these clerical jobs may even remain once the person holding them at the time of the switch quits, with the new holder of the job being a relative of some highly-placed official or donor.
Bureaucracies are worse than cockroach infestations.
The more money you give to people for free, the less work they'll do.
Interestingly, previous small-scale experiments have not really shown this; time spent working only decreased a small amount, and was mostly replaced with other useful activities (raising children or education). Do you think the previous experiments did not measure this, or do you think the results will not scale?
My guess is the expectation is that the results will not generalize--I suspect a UBI will work relatively well, as long as the group trying it has as a basic cultural expectation that everybody contributes to society. It'll do pretty well in most of Scandinavia, possibly, since they are one of those cultures and there is the basic social expectation that you of course want to contribute to society. In places where works like Steal This Book would even get published? Well, I suppose it'll be quite good for creating an effective one-party state and ensuring they get the votes to keep it looking like a democracy.
If you want something that will be robust, it might be better to identify those jobs that are not part of what we traditionally think of as work but are of value to society, and start providing a stipend to people who do them. Things like taking care of your family is labor, so why do we not treat it as worthy of being paid in some manner?
Sounds about right--part of the entire reason I have those live disks is because I'm not being paid to provide support, and thus prefer to enable DIYing it since I've no incentive to up billable hours. (The other part is that I use them myself.)
So, I take it you're one of these "mellinials"? As for Millennials, many of us have been using computers long enough to have gotten to use Win7 if not older versions such as WinXP, especially since K12 schools can often be expected to have their Win boxes running older versions--those of us at the older end can even remember working with Win3.1.
I've personally worked on everything from command lines to ribbons and honestly have had an easier time with things I had to rely on using badly-documented command lines to get to work than quite a few ribbons. They're a mix of the worst of toolbars and menus, wrapped up with the assumption that the enduser is barely literate in any sense of the word. (I've worked on systems where I wasn't fluent in the OS's language, too. Still a better experience than ribbons.)
You might want to be a bit cautious about calling an entire generation stupid when you can't even spell its name right, especially when browsers typically have built-in spellcheck. I will, though, agree that most of it is--it's just not this stupid outside of the delusions of the people who believe that the current UI trends are a Good Idea.
You're kidding, right? Most of the people I've watched hate Win8+ most are 'melenials'--including myself (from the upper end of it) and people who are designers, some of whom are even willing to do it for $$$. (Design tends to be one of those places where somebody not doing it professionally may be very good at the official skillset but either lacks or doesn't feel they are paid enough to obtain the unofficial required skillset of 'dealing with delusional idiots from management.')
I will admit, the flat UI is nice, but honestly? I am pretty sure somebody's already kicked out the door what I need to get whatever flavor of Linux desktop to have that flat look, without things like tiles unless I decide in a fit of insanity I need those. The ribbons? Actually, really damn annoying, because ribbons seem to be intended to be menus for barely-literates who cannot be trusted with hotkeys either. Just let me customize my toolbar or ribbon or header of buttony goodness so everything I actually need regularly is up there. I want to be able to click (or tap) once and be done.
Honestly, I kind of suspect ribbons are the result of delusional idiots from management, precisely because a lot of the stuff that seems to end up in the ribbon that's most easily gotten at are those things I would expect somebody in middle management to use most often.
I know that you can get MS Office for Macs, so honestly I suspect that the only thing keeping Microsoft from selling a Linux version is a perceived lack of demand, never mind that I suspect it'd take rather little effort to actually get out the door.
That said, my experience with MS Office and LibreOffice is that they're equally good overall--each has different places where they're better or worse, and the problem is that MS Office expects me to pay for a program that's merely differently dysfunctional from what I can use for free. (I'm a bit amused that spellcheck is part of what keeps you in MS Office, because it's actually what drove me to try the FOSS alternative--MS Office's spellcheck was annoyingly hostile to my writing things thick with technical vocabulary, and not that friendly to attempts to get it to learn new words. As for grammar checking...my experience is that neither's really any better at it yet than 'small human paid with bag of candy.')
Anal ventriloquism; impressive. I've switched over hundreds of my clients [who are casual users] from Winblows to Mint over the past six years or so and the less technically adept they are, the more likely they are to benefit.
How, by being tied to you for paid support? I've run Linux farms, and won't go anywhere else for most application servers, because they can configured perfectly for the task at hand. But user machines need to be prioritised to UI, device compatibility, and familiarity and Linux is horrible by comparison. I don't expect much agreement in here, but I've worked in several places that allow techy staff (non-MS techies) their own machines (laptop/desktop), and most of them choose Mac or Windows. I know of precisely zero non-techy staff that have even heard of Linux. There is a reason that the Linux desktop has failed outside a few fringe experiments (like Munich) because it simply doesn't stack up.
I'm not sure how to tell you this, but quite a few casual users I've dealt with have walked off with Linux live disks taken from my emergency stack because of Microsoft's UI decisions from Win8 on--and most seem to be pretty happy with the move.
Admittedly, the flavors in my stack of Linux live disks are deliberately picked to be luser-friendly--it exists so I don't have to be bothered by others' needing data off a hosed OS, or who can't even tell if it's a software or hardware problem. (In the second case, I basically tell them pick a disk, tell me if the computer will boot and if it does, do you still have the problem?)
If they can't manage to get a disk into an optical drive and boot the computer up...well, either that's outright part of what is wrong with the machine and I need to go over with a live USB to continue diagnostics, or I can safely identify where at least one major problem is located and that it is one that cannot be fixed...
From what I've heard and seen as the basic likely amount you're going to get from two years of either type of language in high school, 'not enough of either' is where I'd be betting. (I do know about learning problems. With Japanese--some Japanese broadcasters do, I hear, broadcast over the internet and don't region-lock it, that can often help a lot. I opted to strand myself in Tokyo for a while.)
False; as somebody who speaks multiple languages and can code, I find both have their uses--for one, I chose my languages well as nearly every single STEM field has two major languages, meaning while a decent amount of the lit is in English, you can access pretty much anything of note in the lit by picking up the right not-English language and yes, people will pay for somebody who stacks correctly to just do stuff like make sure that the relevant lit isn't in the language they don't speak or coordinate between research groups. Another, rather interesting thing is that learning a second (human) language improves your overall language skills. Not so much with coding.
The real question ought to be is if you're going to learn enough of either type of language to get much use out of either. (And, frankly, I'd argue for teaching coding from elementary school.) If the answer to is 'not enough of either,' this argument seems silly.
You went "Examples?" in reply to somebody who stated that fact-checkers in general are Bad at it. I prefaced my comment with a conditional saying that I was going with the interpretation that that is what you wanted examples of, since it was the only claim that could possibly want such, and then provided you with evidence that in fact this is a long-term problem whose consequences are becoming significant. I chose older links precisely to minimize the political effects and demonstrate that the problem is not new. About the only significant thing that would likely have changed in what journalistic criticism of fact-checkers might now include discussion of how much their choices in how to redefine 'fact' creatively may be driven by a desire for greater clicks and catering to their presumed audience's biases. (I doubt they'd use the same examples of bad "fact-checking," but that would be relatively minor.)
Because these issues exist as a long-term widespread problem among fact-checkers, it's overall safe to be cautious of any claim they make, even if it's something like "Water is wet."
If you're asking for examples of "what the fact checkers debunk" having a less than optimal relationship with "what was said," it's been something that's been an ongoing problem for years. Here's two examples of critical views of them from 2012, from the Columbia Journalism Review and NPR, and the only thing that appears to have particularly changed much since then is who benefits most from not bringing up the important issue of "Who will fact-check the fact-checkers?"
You are aware that there's thousands of years between the Clovis culture disappearing and Columbus landing? Not only that, but the major thread that seems to be used to claim that the sites belong to a common culture is a technological signature, which... Well, I don't think that particular thing got thought through that well. (Hint: Look at how tech spreads between cultures now...and there's nothing new here.)
You do realize that tribes did in fact compete over territory, right? The rules and taboos weren't necessarily the same as the ones in Europe--population tended to be a lot more valuable so you had things like (forcible) adoptions and wife-stealing with genocides being rare,* but it doesn't really matter what precisely happened if nobody in the area is able to continue the ethnic group.
Sometimes tribes even had internal fights--for example, the Hawaiian people became a unified state (not merely a shared culture) because Kamehameha the Great decided "Fuck this shit" and proceeded to kick ass until they were pretty much completely united. (Europeans were involved, but Kamehameha the Great was the guy in charge, and he very likely did it in part because he realized that a united people would be better able to survive as a people.)
* There's a few sites that damn well look like somebody committed genocide but the only way any Europeans were involved would require time travel.
You're missing a critical point, dickhead: That still makes it wrong
No, I'm not missing it, I merely was presuming that the readers' IQs were sufficiently high that explicitly stating the obvious would be an insult to their intelligence. It doesn't need to be a European invention to be wrong, and the person I was replying to was denying that it happened in the Americas...which I suppose I ought to explicitly note is wrong--oh, and inherently racist, not for the least because some of the evidence we've got we have because the Natives themselves told us.
There is a (potential) buyer involved here. It shouldn't be needed, and in fact I'd argue that from an ethics standpoint, it should not include an outside-the-group buyer. (If it's a group of people who have claims who want to buy out the rest, meh.)
There's some pretty famous games that almost certainly only got that rerelease because people kept passing around copies--some of them pirated simply because of how rare the game and/or functional consoles to play it on are--and believe me, any "remastered in HD" treatment for a game that's worth paying a cent for is going to include fixes of bad bugs and quite a few have the remaster announced well ahead of time. A couple I'm waiting to see are promising to do things like get stuff they ran out of time for originally finally in the game--in some cases this means plot holes get properly closed.
There's a whole bunch of IP out there whose rights are tangled in so much red tape that nobody's actually too certain who actually has the right to do something like shove, say, a half-assed transfer or a dump wrapped in an emulator out the door, never mind a "remastered in HD" sort of endeavor. Orphaned works and works that are effectively orphaned are a problem for a reason--and one major improvement to copyright law would be simply to make it so title must be maintained clearly and failure to do so is taken as implicitly releasing it into the public domain.
With your example? It'd have been child's play to ask them directly if they wanted that rehosting set up for them, and I suspect quite easy to throw money at them to obtain copies.
The problem here, however, is that we've got a decent amount of stuff where it's not that easy: where the owners are MIA or unidentifiable.
Actually, if you go through the history of the Americas, you find a lot of records of one group pushing out another, as well as some pretty good evidence that groups did indeed get wiped out. (Proving it tends to require there be written records.) Pushing out native peoples is not a European invention; until modern times it and weather were the driving forces behind all human migrations, and it still drives a lot of migration to this day.
Then the problem is that to generate a clear title, the land must needs be sold. I would think that there would be some process to require those with a claim to either come forward or abandon their claim, without any need for a buyer whatsoever, unless the legal system is pretty much deliberately set up to force the sale of family lands.
Um, actually, the polite translation of haole is 'foreigner.' It's not at all a polite thing to call somebody--it's an outsider who steals from the group, usually feeling entitled to it. (That this is also the word used for all white people should tell you a lot about how Native Hawaiians feel about white people.)
So, really, still accurate!
In the US there is more space. Plenty of space for a bidet. Incorporating the bidet function into the toilet seat is just a space saving method that is appropriate for the tiny bathrooms in Japan.
That depends. If you're dealing with somebody out of the tiny house movement, or a house that's just plain lacking in bathrooms with not much space for wedging the ones it needs in? You might end up with a bathroom with a toilet, a sink, and everything tiled so you can use the whole thing as a shower stall. I've looked at an example--the only bathroom the house came with was so insanely laid out that the sole reason to believe that it was, in fact, built into the house was because inside bathrooms had been a thing for a century by the time it was built. (It was basically a secret passage, with various elements of a bathroom tucked into nooks along it and at the very end, instead of treasure, was a toilet.)
Also, honestly, if my choices are 'larger tub,' 'tub and shower seperate,' and 'bidet'? Yeah, let's go with bidet function in the toilet seat, soaking tubs are awesome and if you're sharing the place with somebody who takes eternal soaks or showers like I've been doing? Being able to both bathe at once might be required simply so you get to bathe at all.
I'm not sure how to break this to you, but the heart is inside the body. This goes around the heart. This is an implant, unless the definition of implant has suddenly and inexplicably changed from "stuffs what you open up the body, insert, and leave for some period of time."
Is moving the goalposts your hobby or just a bad habit of yours? These people were pronounced, in a clinical setting, dead as per your request. These people didn't have 'localized circulatory collapse,' they had their heart and breathing stop, and as the paper notes, this is probably an under-reported problem. Moreover, I donno how to break it to you, but O2 consumption monitors work on the assumption that you are experiencing respiration, something that if you are doing when somebody starts CPR on you? They're doing it very wrong.
It seems unlikely for two reasons that O2 consumption monitoring would have not identified these people as dead, anyway. For one, if you'd read the paper, you'd know it explicitly discusses means for detecting Lazarus syndrome without relying on chance. If it'd work, they would suggest it. Perhaps more to the point, several of the cases in the lit suffered the kinds of damage that strongly indicate oxygen deprivation--no respiration was taking place, meaning you'd be unlikely to notice much difference between it and a fresh corpse since the microbes involved in decomposition also consume oxygen. (How do you think vacuum-preservation of meat works, magic?)
Oh, and the paper covers what medical science defines death as though I suppose it might be hard to understand if you don't have a biomedical background. (Here's a bit of help: in asystole the heart isn't even twitching, the heart monitor flatlines, and it is very, very memorable once you've seen it happen. So of course the physio lab on how heart monitors work required we wrap up with flatlining our pithed frog...)
Review that happens to not only mention the outcomes of 38 medically-documented cases published in journals of a particular type of it, but also the possible causes and measures to take. Will that do?
In the first world or the US? Because quite frankly, when it comes to general healthcare, the US isn't quite on par with the first world...
On this, it's an issue of technology and staff training. Third World countries typically fail to have the tech needed but have some pretty skilled health care workers once you adjust for the simple fact that they're working around not having access to high tech; First World countries tend to have what fails be staff training, and sometimes overly-dependent on tech so they may not always think to do such common-sense things as confirm that the heart monitor is not just singing the Broken Machine Blues.
Some of these horror stories don't necessarily get talked about outside of the medical community, since the overall feeling is that the general population is going to distinctly overestimate the chances of it happening to them--but the stories get passed around precisely to remind everybody inside that certain steps might seem pointless but aren't. They're cautionary tales, much the local tale(s) of the fate of whomever thought trying to repair a computer while it was on was a Good Idea.
I could see that problem in the US, in France, there isn't really a financial incentive to the hospital to harvest body parts.
Also, the stories about people waking in the morgue are lovely tales from the crypt, but have little to do with reality, and have not had for at least 100 years now.
Nope, actually, it's just a lot rarer now--in the first world, anyway, and the general expectation now is that it means somebody botched their job. I think the last case was ~25 years ago, was a little old lady, and she was kicking around long enough afterwards to get interviewed. (I didn't catch much about the case, except apparently the fact that they put her in the freezer saved her life.)
Incidentally, it's cases like that which get brought up when somebody suggests being less careful in checking.
As for the issue with brain death--I think the paper discussing the problems getting noticed in correctly determining the amount of brain activity was published in 2015. I would very much enjoy reading it, but it's very much a current and ongoing problem in neuro.
As for financial incentives in France--can't tell you, I don't read French and any reports that go into the inner workings of France's organ donation system are almost certainly going to be in French. I can, however, with great confidence state that both the US and France have them as being supposed to be donations--because both countries are in pretty explicit agreement on payments being unethical--meaning that no financial incentive should exist, period, in either country.