Replying to correct mismoderation--and because I have to agree here. What I'm suspecting is that we're ignoring that currently mainstream Western culture with feminism's encouragement/collusion is conditioning women to be Neo-Victorian delicate flowers (complete with fragile fee-fees), which is...pretty much the last thing anybody going into STEM needs, regardless of their sex or gender.
Really, the problem is as much what we give women as a social role as anything else. Other places get different results, simply because they don't see being emotional as feminine.
Actually, if this had been proceeding in good faith, especially if they had given the impression that they were permitting it, then this is rather bad PR for them as well as potentially legally if the judge feels this is bad faith in Paramount's part... That said, everything I've heard about the franchise since I jumped ship is that the bar for "better than canon" has plummeted despite a brief improvement with the start of the reboot. (I stopped watching with Voyager, because the writing dropped below even what I could stand...)
Sometimes I suspect that what the industry needs to consider doing is using fanworks as a scouting tool...and doing things like offering a very promising fan movie the opportunity to drop the 'fan' part.
Odds are, it'd be beneficial to everybody, as long as it works as 'buying into' as opposed to 'hijacking,' and you could likely make it so an official license for the project has you having the option of buying into the project as part of the conditions. Long term, my ass is covered by the license and it's cheap goodwill and good publicity. If I give the license generally for the absolute minimum legally required to make it valid...I also ensure people will probably be on my side if/when I do send somebody a C&D order instead.
Right now it looks like we're heading to a population maximum, as the factors causing the birth rates to drop below replacement in the First World spread. It'll take a few decades for the drop to show, since this is a place where pure numbers say less than their distribution...which is getting heavier and heavier on the elderly end of the curve.
So, really, the odds are that the excess won't die as much as not be born, and we might even find ourselves in the awkward position of going straight from worrying about overpopulation to having to worry about not having jobs automated fast enough to still be able to maintain our tech base because we lack the people needed. And may still have a lot of people when this hits, as the problem is one of distribution. Insufficient 20-year-olds entering a vital field will not end well regardless of all other factors; people do eventually die, even if society needs them not to.
If this idea really is, as it claims, cheaper than trying to sort everything out--if the costs of giving the money to everybody is lower the administrative costs--then I would hope that the plan incudes clearing out the resulting deadwood and reducing taxes. I expect, instead, for those jobs to become sinecures for the political class to hand out and the savings to meet a similar fate...
"He went as far as pointing out that slavery is a result of government regulation, and that free markets would have resulted in its dissolution."
Dear god, I guess I have to read the damn book now. This seems hilariously funny to me. I just don't see how government regulating or not regulating markets has anything to do with slavery. In free market the merchandise can speak up their mind about being sold?:-D
Governments can and have done it--there's been a few points where the costs of slave vs free labor have been such that you're better off not owning your workers, and is one of the factors in the demise of serfdom. (It's also propped up slavery, sometimes through the law of unintended consequences: there's only a few ways for things to go if you ensure that you can't sell a crop or product for enough that it's cost-effective to use free labor.)
We need a mix for different things. Heavy regulation or state ownership can be good for essential services like water and electricity. Competition can be good for spurring innovation. Clearly too little regulation in the financial sector was not a good idea.
Given just how much the efforts to regulate the financial sector features on the Wikipedia page for regulatory capture, I'd say that the issue is less the amount of regulation and more one of failure to ensure proper lack on incest between the regulators and those they regulate.
Here, offhand, I'd say that either an industry or government regulatory agency would do the job--a joint venture might work best, since you want to have the ability to phase in and out standards...at least, until it becomes standard practice to have wireless charging. (There, I think long-term we'd want to maintain a high degree of backwards compatibility, especially if somebody gets around to offering charging kiosks.)
That's precisely why I brought it up as a way to keep your name and address off the official records: an explicitly non-commercial corporation which can have its objectives easily enough set up to make letting the corporation hold the drone license be something that the government doesn't want to argue. Just make it a choice between letting the club have the license or risking having minors on a publicly-accessible list...
I'm joining with the crowd recommending Foobar2000; I got into it because I wanted something for my Linux box, and when WinAmp went down I switched entirely.
For video on Windows, though, try Media Player Classic--lightweight, and like Foobar2000 is quite portable though unlike Foobar2k no special installation is necessary. (I've run it on a system with a good codec collection installed--I use CCCP, and am hoping to find a Linux equivalent of it--with just the program file dropped into a folder.)
So one couldn't, for example, incorporate a non-profit drone & RC club, possibly with an agenda of allowing a group to spread the costs of craft (and possibly trips to suitable sites for flying) among themselves & to make the hobby more accessible for disadvantages kids?
And if you think scientific consensus is an oxymoron, then you don't understand how science works at all. This idea that science is nothing more than a pack of edifice-building conspirators being toppled by a few brave sacred cow tippers is absurd and demonstrates a complete ignorance of how science works, and how scientists interact. Providing all concerned understand that a well supported and accepted theory still remains a theory, and it's "truth" is provisional, there is absolutely nothing wrong with consensus.
The problem is that, to borrow your imagery, consensus in humans is very prone to go about anointing cows and loathe afterwards to turn them into hamburgers when necessary: the conditional you give is a very good one, but there's every reason to believe that unless we change something fundamental in how we view science, it'll never be safe to trust that the majority do more than think this is what they believe right up until they have to deal with even potentially slaughtering their pet sacred cow. This is probably a result of how we generally think of science--we overall think of it as a way to find The Truth, as opposed to gradually approximate a potentially-unknowable truth.
When it comes to how science is reported, this along with such other gems of scientism such as the 'science will majykally* fix/destroy everything' are too common in their explicit and/or implicit forms, and we really don't talk as much as we ought about the problems posed by scientism.
Changing identities? I really don't think that's necessary. There are always going to be some dumb people who do dumb things. But honestly this is such a small blip on the radar of even crazy people. They will call and make death threats, and in a couple days they will move on to the new thing. There is no reason to enter the witness protection program and say good bye to your extended family because a few idiots sent you some death threats.
That's not to say that I think no death threats are credible. There is a difference between being targeted by religious extremists or a state intelligence agency or a criminal syndicate, and some random idiots who are only targeting you because they are belligerent and stupid.
Witness protection programs cover a lot more and you don't pay for them; they're for when you're very sure that your death threats include somebody with the resources to follow you through changing your name, address, and phone number. The latter--which is what I was talking about--is all that's necessary when it's most likely people harassing you for the lulz.
The reason that is necessary? It only takes one person with the ability to get shit somewhere to kill a person. Yes, most of the threats probably will be 'random idiots,' but the main way to tell 'random idiot' from 'murderous crazy' is somebody gets seriously hurt. This is precisely why the behavior you're talking about is against the law--the 'intent to cause fear and terror' requirement is almost certain to be met here.
There is a $400K life insurance policy that goes with that $100K.
There's plenty of precedent for paying more than $1M in cases similar this.
I'm not saying there isn't. We have a society very heavily steeped in litigation. I am speaking about what I think someone like this deserves compared to what his "damages" are and relative to the what other people are compensated for their "damages", and I subjectively feel like $1M is an utterly ridiculous amount of money.
I think that depends on where most of that money goes--for example, how much will it actually cost for a family that has a small business to sufficiently change their identities? It'll include a lot of legal paperwork, and if renaming and relocating is insufficient to cut the connection, the business itself would have to be liquidated and then rebuilt. In some cases, it may not be possible for it to just sell its assets to its successor in order to make the switch.
It may also be that the costs expected are under $1M, but the amount was chosen to deter future such hijinks by dealerships--in which case I tend to favor those who admit it up-front and openly plan to donate the difference to charity.
The OP states the police will only respond if there is video. If that were a policy, not only would it be published but it would also open the police department up to a number of 'neglect of duty' lawsuits.
It is in fact the policy in an increasing number of jurisdictions, including San Jose, Detroit, Las Vegas, Akron and Milwaukee that alarms be verified by video or eyewitness before police will respond. In other jurisdictions, such as Bakersfield, Saturday night response times can be up to three hours for non-verified alarms.
A quick check over at Wikipedia says that they figure that between 2%-6% of home burglar alarms getting tripped are by actual burglars, so I think it's safe to say that there's a very good reason for a jurisdiction to require some type of verification. It's worth noting that apparently there's reports of such things as perfectly normal spiders successfully triggering motion detectors, and I've been through a round of a...self-testing fire alarm--thankfully we didn't have to fend off firefighters while attempting to get it shut down, but it was sufficiently loud somebody had to be sent next door to make the phone call required to get it turned off.
Now all services will be delivered to the person on the first floor below your apartment because nobody will think about the vertical direction not specified by the three words. Not very helpful.
Not quite; as long as I know the people in that apartment I can get my things, without having to play Guess the Shipper whenever I order something simply because one refuses to deliver anything if given my legal address--and I thought I've been very clear that I would be giving both. If they can't work out the obvious--that the door numbers are the last two digits of each apartment's number, and the rest comes from the building (each one with its own unique street address)--then the word triplet would hopefully manage to get it so my downstairs neighbor can either hold my package for me or go "Oh, yeah, upstairs."
Given some of the absurdity involved with getting things from Regularly Lost Pizza Delivery, it'd also mean they managed to get somewhat closer to where the hell I am. I can go downstairs and wait for them. In fact, I already have--one of them once worked out that this strange string of numbers was a 'phone number' and tried calling it. (I wish I was kidding.)
I'm not at all convinced this is going to work as a complete replacement for street addresses: I see it more as a way to do a 'parity bit' for street addresses, and extremely useful when you're in a city where the first question is "But which 321 Foobar St?" as presumably only one would be also matching the location designated as absurdity.eternally.ascendant and is more human-friendly for both memorization and transmission. Numbers are good for this if and only if we're just having machines talk to machines; otherwise, the nine-digit zip codes would be pretty much all that you needed to put on things you're mailing.
Japanese addresses are so generally screwy that it is normal behavior to draw maps when giving directions.
Yes, I've heard that map programs for finding addresses are the first thing that Japanese install on their phones. Outside of every train station and otherwise scattered around are maps of the neighborhood that show blocks and buildings with their numbers. See, everything is divided up by Prefecture, City, Neighborhood, Block, Building (floor, office) and numbered in no particular standard order for streets that are certainly not even laid out in a grid pattern. There's no way to find an address without a map in in someplace like Tokyo as sometimes the building isn't even marked with their number (because they expect you to be following a map). Much worse than London and their need for AtoZ.
If there's maps outside the train stations, I never saw one--I ended up just buying a map of the city while I was in Tokyo. The numbering of buildings actually is, however, in a particular order--by age, more or less. (Good luck.) Neighborhoods and blocks do follow sequential order if you're wandering the right direction--for example, 4-3 followed 4-2 and 4-1, and sometimes 4-4 did as well. (Exactly what direction to go is something you have to learn, but it can be picked up quickly, and you can generally work out where to start looking for the koban or a person to ask with a bit of wandering. Worth it if you are living in the neighborhood, since that means you can get it down to the building number and thus having a good chance of finding somebody who knows where that is.)
Street names are a rarity in Japan because they think more of intersections--which has its own logic, really--and in Tokyo you should be thinking of all of it as being like NYC with about 4 times the boroughs because, well, that's...pretty much what's going on. (This is why Tokyo is called a metropolitan area and not a prefecture.)
I'll give you 60 seconds to memorize the GPS coordinates of a housing block versus 60 seconds to memorize 3 English words
Memorization is from use, not by picking a random block and asking people to memorize it in 60 seconds. Also, if one can't memorize their own postal code through normal use, then they probably can't function normally in society.
It's easier to memorize a phrase than a group of numbers unless you can attach meaning to the numbers--I lucked out with my mobile phone number and only have to worry about transposing the last two 'elements' I use to remember it. If it was simply by 'use,' then we'd not bother with street names and use the 9-digit zip codes which do give a precise location.
The problem being that there appears to be no rhyme nor reason to the three words being used for squares in contiguous space. Use their website to look at a few squares that are all part of the same piece of property - it appears to be completely random.
I'm never going to tell someone that they can find my driveway at 'slope.radioactive.massaging' because they have no fucking clue what that means to anything but this database. Whereas if you tell them some thing like '390 SE Hawthorne St.' they can at least have a clue depending on how the city and addressing scheme works.
I think it'd work best as a way to double up your address--for example, UPS absolutely refuses to deliver to my address unless I write it in a 'weird' way because they can't work out how my apartment complex's numbering system works. (This is impressive in all the wrong ways.) Given that some places don't necessarily tell me who they'll ship my packages through, if I can give them both the address in the form the government puts it and a three-word set, I think it's reasonable for me to be rather annoyed with them if they still fail to figure out where I am.
This also might help the nearest pizza delivery place manage to find my apartment on a regular basis, too. No, I've no idea how they manage to inconsistently fail.
I don't really see this as a way to replace street addresses, but rather a way to give two different means for determining your address, in case the !@#$ delivery person cannot locate you--and if designed so all the words work as a phonetic alphabet and you can safely work out what three words are meant if you know it's S*.R*.M* and local, it could possibly be a faster & more robust way to tell Emergency Services where you are.
Let's take the example of burns. There is a casual relationship with 'having been on fire' and 'having burns.' However, there is not relationship being 'having burns' and 'having been on fire.' The fact you have burns doesn't mean you were on fire: they might have been caused by something else, such as hot liquids, hot metal, or corrosive chemicals. However, if you have been on fire, you probably will have burns.
This is what's going on with polygraphs: There's a (not entirely reliable) causal relationship between 'lying' and 'certain physiological responses.' As you noted, these physiological responses are not caused by lying. For example, a relatively recent study with subjects who consented to having their PTSD intentionally triggered to cause flashbacks found that the effects registered as lies--which actually is one of the reasons many areas don't even bother trying if somebody is known to already have a heart condition.
If you want people to cite peer-reviewed papers on this subject for you, then know your terminology. It's not like this is something that can be found easily via PubMed; you're asking for stuff that'll be best looked for using PsycINFO which requires a paid membership to access. It doesn't help at all that a lot of the papers are behind paywalls themselves. However, there is [Risk assessment by means of polygraphy.] so the question is, how good is your Dutch? (There's a few others that would fit, but many are indexed without abstracts and require a journal subscription, such as the review Physiological measures and the detection of deception.. Let me know if you can get at it, I want a copy. Or at least the abstract...)
Aside from suggesting that you perhaps ought to make an effort to demonstrate your goal yourself, it's also worth pointing out that people who hold that particular view have an interesting tendency to confuse 'a decision I do not like' with 'a decision fueled by emotions instead of intellect.' The bottom line is that the original person is very right: Humans are irrational and emotional beings.
Accepting this is, in fact, key to not letting that prevent yourself from letting your emotions rule you, because that enables you to compensate and ask yourself if you're just trying to rationalize a decision you made emotionally, and accept those moments when the only way to decide fast enough is to go with your emotions. So, too, is the idea that others may be making what are perfectly reasonable decisions that merely appear to you to be entirely emotional--they might have decided that y'know what, they're happier staying home with the trio of literal screaming infants because while their job does pay well it doesn't pay enough to make it worth dealing with the greater number of non-literal screaming infants there instead. While I would say this is an emotional decision, I'd also not consider it an irrational one: the only thing that's irrational is involving gender roles in this.
But if we're going to talk about gender roles, let's get back on-topic: Modern Western culture rewards and encourages women to behave in an emotional manner. It's not even a universal--in some cultures women are expected to be the tough, rational voice and the men emotional. The suggestion of using more emotional wording to try to increase the number of women in the field is very definitely reinforcing gender roles. This is particularly bad since there's actually good reasons to bring up the emotional aspects--this seems like the kind of job where you want somebody who is emotionally invested in doing the best job possible, and you're more likely to find people with that if you call on 'empathy for potential victims' than 'pride in work' because the latter's rare.
All humans, not just women, are irrational and emotional.
The complacency implied in that statement is part of the problem, and that complacency may be holding back the human race from evolving towards our intellect having more control over our actions than our emotions.
They've actually had a few case studies on just what happens if somebody's emotions for some reason or other (read: various flavors of brain damage) cease to be involved in their decision-making processes. This included one woman whose rich husband bribed his way into getting her a lobotomy, because he thought her 'too talkative.' The only time she actually felt anything after the surgery was joy at his death.
She lost pretty much every single cent of the considerable fortune he left behind.
Emotions, it turns out, are actually pretty important to making good decisions--they remind you of the risks and encourage caution. It's like having a friend who is insightful but impulsive: letting them be in charge is probably bad, but so is ignoring them.
, but the measurements of the physiological involuntary responses to their questions IS quite real
So you can cite some peer-reviewed research that shows this can you? Thought not.
I don't have the resources on hand to get it, but the problem is that the same physiological involuntary responses can be connected to so many different things it's not funny--the results can be thrown off by all sorts of things, like a calm person who feels no nervousness at all or the polygraph examiner weirding you out by staring at you creepily.
Basically, it's measuring things that many people feel when they lie, but is not unique to lying nor consistently present.
The difference there is the right to silence. If you wish to enter the UK and the Border Agency officer pulls you out the line then you have to answer the questions put to you. If you don't you will be put on a plane/boat back to whence you came from, or simply won't be allowed on the train (for those coming through the chunnel).
If you are being "questioned" by the police you can just sit there and remain silent.
Standard advice I've gotten from lawyers of all types right up to and including prosecutors: Get yourself a lawyer. Even if you're innocent, a lawyer will be able to best advise you of your rights, and you have a right to have one before you answer any questions--and it may be in your benefit to answer questions, since the cops may be out to rule you out--they don't want their actual suspect's lawyer using you as an alternate suspect, they want to be able to show that you were elsewhere.
If they try to refuse you a lawyer, then stay silent until you can get out. Look up a lawyer who specializes in civil rights cases--if all else fails, ACLU or one of its relatives, because you need one.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not intended as professional legal advice, I just talk to lawyers.
"Previously, people had just not watched shows they didn't like beyond the first episode or two."
Previously, there were only 3 things to watch at a time so you watched what was on whether you liked it or not..
Or turned it off, which helped encourage those three things to make an effort to have as broad appeal as possible since they had to compete with each other and the off switch.
Walmart Corporate got a hold of me after I posted several microcomplaints online and satisfied my situation much in my benefit within a few hours. Instead of losing my business forever (especially since a Costco just recently opened, they earned it back).
Those were not microcomplaints on your part. That was a legit response to bad service.
A microcomplaint is something like getting all pissed off about the font on the mattress not being bold instead of regular.
Or taking a snowflake off of a coffee cup and igniting a shitstorm.
Or me complaining that microcomplaint annoys my spell checker.
It's also something like complaining about your coffee being called black, or language that is not about race being suddenly about it--and, arguably, are more reflective of the person making the complaint than anything else. It suggests that they are viewing the world through a filter of race, religion, or the like.
Though, I do agree the plain red cups were a mistake--they look more like somebody effed up the cup order. If what we were being promised is, say, a gradual appearance of seasonal symbols, I'd understand and think it actually pretty cool, but instead I feel just...like I've got a small child who is trying very hard to pretend that nothing wrong happened honest they're normally covered in flour/mud/blood. (And the sweater is probably going to end up an object lesson on why you make sure you don't cut corners in product testing--even when it's a sweater design, show it to people who don't know what it's supposed to be. If nothing else, you'll be certain that your 'cute polar bear' isn't 'dog(?)' to everybody else...)
So, to not believe in your fairy tale I have to join the douchebag crowd? I can't simply not be part of either group of loonies?
Yes, you can be in your own offensive loony douchebag camp all of your own!
The Old Testament's laws are explicitly invalidated, though I can't find the citation right now for the most direct time. While Jesus himself did not say as much, it was a very early and major debate which is documented through its (original) end in the New Testament, with what could be interpreted as God going "Sorry I thought you guys didn't need to be told the old covenant was complete." In fact, one view is that the entire point of the OT laws was to prove that it was impossible to be a perfect person--you couldn't be good enough to get away without asking and receiving forgiveness--while the NT God basically offers up an alternate option of "Automatic forgiveness on request, please try to keep the list down."
I should note, it doesn't even take being Christian to know this, as my raised-Pagan SO confirms; it's pretty basic, and something you have to know about in detail if you're studying the religion's history because parts of that theological debate are still important today.
Slashdot Mirror
Replying to correct mismoderation--and because I have to agree here. What I'm suspecting is that we're ignoring that currently mainstream Western culture with feminism's encouragement/collusion is conditioning women to be Neo-Victorian delicate flowers (complete with fragile fee-fees), which is...pretty much the last thing anybody going into STEM needs, regardless of their sex or gender.
Really, the problem is as much what we give women as a social role as anything else. Other places get different results, simply because they don't see being emotional as feminine.
Sometimes I suspect that what the industry needs to consider doing is using fanworks as a scouting tool...and doing things like offering a very promising fan movie the opportunity to drop the 'fan' part.
Odds are, it'd be beneficial to everybody, as long as it works as 'buying into' as opposed to 'hijacking,' and you could likely make it so an official license for the project has you having the option of buying into the project as part of the conditions. Long term, my ass is covered by the license and it's cheap goodwill and good publicity. If I give the license generally for the absolute minimum legally required to make it valid...I also ensure people will probably be on my side if/when I do send somebody a C&D order instead.
So, really, the odds are that the excess won't die as much as not be born, and we might even find ourselves in the awkward position of going straight from worrying about overpopulation to having to worry about not having jobs automated fast enough to still be able to maintain our tech base because we lack the people needed. And may still have a lot of people when this hits, as the problem is one of distribution. Insufficient 20-year-olds entering a vital field will not end well regardless of all other factors; people do eventually die, even if society needs them not to.
If this idea really is, as it claims, cheaper than trying to sort everything out--if the costs of giving the money to everybody is lower the administrative costs--then I would hope that the plan incudes clearing out the resulting deadwood and reducing taxes. I expect, instead, for those jobs to become sinecures for the political class to hand out and the savings to meet a similar fate...
"He went as far as pointing out that slavery is a result of government regulation, and that free markets would have resulted in its dissolution."
Dear god, I guess I have to read the damn book now. This seems hilariously funny to me. I just don't see how government regulating or not regulating markets has anything to do with slavery. In free market the merchandise can speak up their mind about being sold? :-D
Governments can and have done it--there's been a few points where the costs of slave vs free labor have been such that you're better off not owning your workers, and is one of the factors in the demise of serfdom. (It's also propped up slavery, sometimes through the law of unintended consequences: there's only a few ways for things to go if you ensure that you can't sell a crop or product for enough that it's cost-effective to use free labor.)
We need a mix for different things. Heavy regulation or state ownership can be good for essential services like water and electricity. Competition can be good for spurring innovation. Clearly too little regulation in the financial sector was not a good idea.
Given just how much the efforts to regulate the financial sector features on the Wikipedia page for regulatory capture, I'd say that the issue is less the amount of regulation and more one of failure to ensure proper lack on incest between the regulators and those they regulate.
Here, offhand, I'd say that either an industry or government regulatory agency would do the job--a joint venture might work best, since you want to have the ability to phase in and out standards...at least, until it becomes standard practice to have wireless charging. (There, I think long-term we'd want to maintain a high degree of backwards compatibility, especially if somebody gets around to offering charging kiosks.)
Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and American Association for the Advancement of Science, among others, disagree with the claim you just made, and that's just picking some of the hits from using Google.
That's precisely why I brought it up as a way to keep your name and address off the official records: an explicitly non-commercial corporation which can have its objectives easily enough set up to make letting the corporation hold the drone license be something that the government doesn't want to argue. Just make it a choice between letting the club have the license or risking having minors on a publicly-accessible list...
I'm joining with the crowd recommending Foobar2000; I got into it because I wanted something for my Linux box, and when WinAmp went down I switched entirely.
For video on Windows, though, try Media Player Classic--lightweight, and like Foobar2000 is quite portable though unlike Foobar2k no special installation is necessary. (I've run it on a system with a good codec collection installed--I use CCCP, and am hoping to find a Linux equivalent of it--with just the program file dropped into a folder.)
So one couldn't, for example, incorporate a non-profit drone & RC club, possibly with an agenda of allowing a group to spread the costs of craft (and possibly trips to suitable sites for flying) among themselves & to make the hobby more accessible for disadvantages kids?
And if you think scientific consensus is an oxymoron, then you don't understand how science works at all. This idea that science is nothing more than a pack of edifice-building conspirators being toppled by a few brave sacred cow tippers is absurd and demonstrates a complete ignorance of how science works, and how scientists interact. Providing all concerned understand that a well supported and accepted theory still remains a theory, and it's "truth" is provisional, there is absolutely nothing wrong with consensus.
The problem is that, to borrow your imagery, consensus in humans is very prone to go about anointing cows and loathe afterwards to turn them into hamburgers when necessary: the conditional you give is a very good one, but there's every reason to believe that unless we change something fundamental in how we view science, it'll never be safe to trust that the majority do more than think this is what they believe right up until they have to deal with even potentially slaughtering their pet sacred cow. This is probably a result of how we generally think of science--we overall think of it as a way to find The Truth, as opposed to gradually approximate a potentially-unknowable truth.
When it comes to how science is reported, this along with such other gems of scientism such as the 'science will majykally* fix/destroy everything' are too common in their explicit and/or implicit forms, and we really don't talk as much as we ought about the problems posed by scientism.
Changing identities? I really don't think that's necessary. There are always going to be some dumb people who do dumb things. But honestly this is such a small blip on the radar of even crazy people. They will call and make death threats, and in a couple days they will move on to the new thing. There is no reason to enter the witness protection program and say good bye to your extended family because a few idiots sent you some death threats.
That's not to say that I think no death threats are credible. There is a difference between being targeted by religious extremists or a state intelligence agency or a criminal syndicate, and some random idiots who are only targeting you because they are belligerent and stupid.
Witness protection programs cover a lot more and you don't pay for them; they're for when you're very sure that your death threats include somebody with the resources to follow you through changing your name, address, and phone number. The latter--which is what I was talking about--is all that's necessary when it's most likely people harassing you for the lulz.
The reason that is necessary? It only takes one person with the ability to get shit somewhere to kill a person. Yes, most of the threats probably will be 'random idiots,' but the main way to tell 'random idiot' from 'murderous crazy' is somebody gets seriously hurt. This is precisely why the behavior you're talking about is against the law--the 'intent to cause fear and terror' requirement is almost certain to be met here.
There is a $400K life insurance policy that goes with that $100K.
There's plenty of precedent for paying more than $1M in cases similar this.
I'm not saying there isn't. We have a society very heavily steeped in litigation. I am speaking about what I think someone like this deserves compared to what his "damages" are and relative to the what other people are compensated for their "damages", and I subjectively feel like $1M is an utterly ridiculous amount of money.
I think that depends on where most of that money goes--for example, how much will it actually cost for a family that has a small business to sufficiently change their identities? It'll include a lot of legal paperwork, and if renaming and relocating is insufficient to cut the connection, the business itself would have to be liquidated and then rebuilt. In some cases, it may not be possible for it to just sell its assets to its successor in order to make the switch.
It may also be that the costs expected are under $1M, but the amount was chosen to deter future such hijinks by dealerships--in which case I tend to favor those who admit it up-front and openly plan to donate the difference to charity.
The OP states the police will only respond if there is video. If that were a policy, not only would it be published but it would also open the police department up to a number of 'neglect of duty' lawsuits.
It is in fact the policy in an increasing number of jurisdictions, including San Jose, Detroit, Las Vegas, Akron and Milwaukee that alarms be verified by video or eyewitness before police will respond. In other jurisdictions, such as Bakersfield, Saturday night response times can be up to three hours for non-verified alarms.
A quick check over at Wikipedia says that they figure that between 2%-6% of home burglar alarms getting tripped are by actual burglars, so I think it's safe to say that there's a very good reason for a jurisdiction to require some type of verification. It's worth noting that apparently there's reports of such things as perfectly normal spiders successfully triggering motion detectors, and I've been through a round of a...self-testing fire alarm--thankfully we didn't have to fend off firefighters while attempting to get it shut down, but it was sufficiently loud somebody had to be sent next door to make the phone call required to get it turned off.
Now all services will be delivered to the person on the first floor below your apartment because nobody will think about the vertical direction not specified by the three words. Not very helpful.
Not quite; as long as I know the people in that apartment I can get my things, without having to play Guess the Shipper whenever I order something simply because one refuses to deliver anything if given my legal address--and I thought I've been very clear that I would be giving both. If they can't work out the obvious--that the door numbers are the last two digits of each apartment's number, and the rest comes from the building (each one with its own unique street address)--then the word triplet would hopefully manage to get it so my downstairs neighbor can either hold my package for me or go "Oh, yeah, upstairs."
Given some of the absurdity involved with getting things from Regularly Lost Pizza Delivery, it'd also mean they managed to get somewhat closer to where the hell I am. I can go downstairs and wait for them. In fact, I already have--one of them once worked out that this strange string of numbers was a 'phone number' and tried calling it. (I wish I was kidding.)
I'm not at all convinced this is going to work as a complete replacement for street addresses: I see it more as a way to do a 'parity bit' for street addresses, and extremely useful when you're in a city where the first question is "But which 321 Foobar St?" as presumably only one would be also matching the location designated as absurdity.eternally.ascendant and is more human-friendly for both memorization and transmission. Numbers are good for this if and only if we're just having machines talk to machines; otherwise, the nine-digit zip codes would be pretty much all that you needed to put on things you're mailing.
Japanese addresses are so generally screwy that it is normal behavior to draw maps when giving directions.
Yes, I've heard that map programs for finding addresses are the first thing that Japanese install on their phones. Outside of every train station and otherwise scattered around are maps of the neighborhood that show blocks and buildings with their numbers. See, everything is divided up by Prefecture, City, Neighborhood, Block, Building (floor, office) and numbered in no particular standard order for streets that are certainly not even laid out in a grid pattern. There's no way to find an address without a map in in someplace like Tokyo as sometimes the building isn't even marked with their number (because they expect you to be following a map). Much worse than London and their need for AtoZ.
If there's maps outside the train stations, I never saw one--I ended up just buying a map of the city while I was in Tokyo. The numbering of buildings actually is, however, in a particular order--by age, more or less. (Good luck.) Neighborhoods and blocks do follow sequential order if you're wandering the right direction--for example, 4-3 followed 4-2 and 4-1, and sometimes 4-4 did as well. (Exactly what direction to go is something you have to learn, but it can be picked up quickly, and you can generally work out where to start looking for the koban or a person to ask with a bit of wandering. Worth it if you are living in the neighborhood, since that means you can get it down to the building number and thus having a good chance of finding somebody who knows where that is.)
Street names are a rarity in Japan because they think more of intersections--which has its own logic, really--and in Tokyo you should be thinking of all of it as being like NYC with about 4 times the boroughs because, well, that's...pretty much what's going on. (This is why Tokyo is called a metropolitan area and not a prefecture.)
Memorization is from use, not by picking a random block and asking people to memorize it in 60 seconds. Also, if one can't memorize their own postal code through normal use, then they probably can't function normally in society.
It's easier to memorize a phrase than a group of numbers unless you can attach meaning to the numbers--I lucked out with my mobile phone number and only have to worry about transposing the last two 'elements' I use to remember it. If it was simply by 'use,' then we'd not bother with street names and use the 9-digit zip codes which do give a precise location.
The problem being that there appears to be no rhyme nor reason to the three words being used for squares in contiguous space. Use their website to look at a few squares that are all part of the same piece of property - it appears to be completely random.
I'm never going to tell someone that they can find my driveway at 'slope.radioactive.massaging' because they have no fucking clue what that means to anything but this database. Whereas if you tell them some thing like '390 SE Hawthorne St.' they can at least have a clue depending on how the city and addressing scheme works.
I think it'd work best as a way to double up your address--for example, UPS absolutely refuses to deliver to my address unless I write it in a 'weird' way because they can't work out how my apartment complex's numbering system works. (This is impressive in all the wrong ways.) Given that some places don't necessarily tell me who they'll ship my packages through, if I can give them both the address in the form the government puts it and a three-word set, I think it's reasonable for me to be rather annoyed with them if they still fail to figure out where I am.
This also might help the nearest pizza delivery place manage to find my apartment on a regular basis, too. No, I've no idea how they manage to inconsistently fail.
I don't really see this as a way to replace street addresses, but rather a way to give two different means for determining your address, in case the !@#$ delivery person cannot locate you--and if designed so all the words work as a phonetic alphabet and you can safely work out what three words are meant if you know it's S*.R*.M* and local, it could possibly be a faster & more robust way to tell Emergency Services where you are.
Except I'm pretty sure you've got 'casual relationship' wrong.
Let's take the example of burns. There is a casual relationship with 'having been on fire' and 'having burns.' However, there is not relationship being 'having burns' and 'having been on fire.' The fact you have burns doesn't mean you were on fire: they might have been caused by something else, such as hot liquids, hot metal, or corrosive chemicals. However, if you have been on fire, you probably will have burns.
This is what's going on with polygraphs: There's a (not entirely reliable) causal relationship between 'lying' and 'certain physiological responses.' As you noted, these physiological responses are not caused by lying. For example, a relatively recent study with subjects who consented to having their PTSD intentionally triggered to cause flashbacks found that the effects registered as lies--which actually is one of the reasons many areas don't even bother trying if somebody is known to already have a heart condition.
If you want people to cite peer-reviewed papers on this subject for you, then know your terminology. It's not like this is something that can be found easily via PubMed; you're asking for stuff that'll be best looked for using PsycINFO which requires a paid membership to access. It doesn't help at all that a lot of the papers are behind paywalls themselves. However, there is [Risk assessment by means of polygraphy.] so the question is, how good is your Dutch? (There's a few others that would fit, but many are indexed without abstracts and require a journal subscription, such as the review Physiological measures and the detection of deception. . Let me know if you can get at it, I want a copy. Or at least the abstract...)
Aside from suggesting that you perhaps ought to make an effort to demonstrate your goal yourself, it's also worth pointing out that people who hold that particular view have an interesting tendency to confuse 'a decision I do not like' with 'a decision fueled by emotions instead of intellect.' The bottom line is that the original person is very right: Humans are irrational and emotional beings.
Accepting this is, in fact, key to not letting that prevent yourself from letting your emotions rule you, because that enables you to compensate and ask yourself if you're just trying to rationalize a decision you made emotionally, and accept those moments when the only way to decide fast enough is to go with your emotions. So, too, is the idea that others may be making what are perfectly reasonable decisions that merely appear to you to be entirely emotional--they might have decided that y'know what, they're happier staying home with the trio of literal screaming infants because while their job does pay well it doesn't pay enough to make it worth dealing with the greater number of non-literal screaming infants there instead. While I would say this is an emotional decision, I'd also not consider it an irrational one: the only thing that's irrational is involving gender roles in this.
But if we're going to talk about gender roles, let's get back on-topic: Modern Western culture rewards and encourages women to behave in an emotional manner. It's not even a universal--in some cultures women are expected to be the tough, rational voice and the men emotional. The suggestion of using more emotional wording to try to increase the number of women in the field is very definitely reinforcing gender roles. This is particularly bad since there's actually good reasons to bring up the emotional aspects--this seems like the kind of job where you want somebody who is emotionally invested in doing the best job possible, and you're more likely to find people with that if you call on 'empathy for potential victims' than 'pride in work' because the latter's rare.
All humans, not just women, are irrational and emotional.
The complacency implied in that statement is part of the problem, and that complacency may be holding back the human race from evolving towards our intellect having more control over our actions than our emotions.
They've actually had a few case studies on just what happens if somebody's emotions for some reason or other (read: various flavors of brain damage) cease to be involved in their decision-making processes. This included one woman whose rich husband bribed his way into getting her a lobotomy, because he thought her 'too talkative.' The only time she actually felt anything after the surgery was joy at his death.
She lost pretty much every single cent of the considerable fortune he left behind.
Emotions, it turns out, are actually pretty important to making good decisions--they remind you of the risks and encourage caution. It's like having a friend who is insightful but impulsive: letting them be in charge is probably bad, but so is ignoring them.
So you can cite some peer-reviewed research that shows this can you? Thought not.
I don't have the resources on hand to get it, but the problem is that the same physiological involuntary responses can be connected to so many different things it's not funny--the results can be thrown off by all sorts of things, like a calm person who feels no nervousness at all or the polygraph examiner weirding you out by staring at you creepily.
Basically, it's measuring things that many people feel when they lie, but is not unique to lying nor consistently present.
The difference there is the right to silence. If you wish to enter the UK and the Border Agency officer pulls you out the line then you have to answer the questions put to you. If you don't you will be put on a plane/boat back to whence you came from, or simply won't be allowed on the train (for those coming through the chunnel).
If you are being "questioned" by the police you can just sit there and remain silent.
Standard advice I've gotten from lawyers of all types right up to and including prosecutors: Get yourself a lawyer. Even if you're innocent, a lawyer will be able to best advise you of your rights, and you have a right to have one before you answer any questions--and it may be in your benefit to answer questions, since the cops may be out to rule you out--they don't want their actual suspect's lawyer using you as an alternate suspect, they want to be able to show that you were elsewhere.
If they try to refuse you a lawyer, then stay silent until you can get out. Look up a lawyer who specializes in civil rights cases--if all else fails, ACLU or one of its relatives, because you need one.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not intended as professional legal advice, I just talk to lawyers.
"Previously, people had just not watched shows they didn't like beyond the first episode or two."
Previously, there were only 3 things to watch at a time so you watched what was on whether you liked it or not..
Or turned it off, which helped encourage those three things to make an effort to have as broad appeal as possible since they had to compete with each other and the off switch.
Walmart Corporate got a hold of me after I posted several microcomplaints online and satisfied my situation much in my benefit within a few hours. Instead of losing my business forever (especially since a Costco just recently opened, they earned it back).
Those were not microcomplaints on your part. That was a legit response to bad service.
A microcomplaint is something like getting all pissed off about the font on the mattress not being bold instead of regular. Or taking a snowflake off of a coffee cup and igniting a shitstorm.
Or me complaining that microcomplaint annoys my spell checker.
It's also something like complaining about your coffee being called black, or language that is not about race being suddenly about it--and, arguably, are more reflective of the person making the complaint than anything else. It suggests that they are viewing the world through a filter of race, religion, or the like.
Though, I do agree the plain red cups were a mistake--they look more like somebody effed up the cup order. If what we were being promised is, say, a gradual appearance of seasonal symbols, I'd understand and think it actually pretty cool, but instead I feel just...like I've got a small child who is trying very hard to pretend that nothing wrong happened honest they're normally covered in flour/mud/blood. (And the sweater is probably going to end up an object lesson on why you make sure you don't cut corners in product testing--even when it's a sweater design, show it to people who don't know what it's supposed to be. If nothing else, you'll be certain that your 'cute polar bear' isn't 'dog(?)' to everybody else...)
So, to not believe in your fairy tale I have to join the douchebag crowd? I can't simply not be part of either group of loonies?
Yes, you can be in your own offensive loony douchebag camp all of your own!
The Old Testament's laws are explicitly invalidated, though I can't find the citation right now for the most direct time. While Jesus himself did not say as much, it was a very early and major debate which is documented through its (original) end in the New Testament, with what could be interpreted as God going "Sorry I thought you guys didn't need to be told the old covenant was complete." In fact, one view is that the entire point of the OT laws was to prove that it was impossible to be a perfect person--you couldn't be good enough to get away without asking and receiving forgiveness--while the NT God basically offers up an alternate option of "Automatic forgiveness on request, please try to keep the list down."
I should note, it doesn't even take being Christian to know this, as my raised-Pagan SO confirms; it's pretty basic, and something you have to know about in detail if you're studying the religion's history because parts of that theological debate are still important today.