Most people would not accept any employment, if it was not for prospect of starvation and those other problems you listed.
Actually, I find being compelled to work stressful, aggravating and heavily interferes with time for people and things very important to me.
Ok, so you are one of those people, who resent having to work for a living — on any terms — yourself. Why, then, are you arguing against the finer points in (some) employment contracts, instead of arguing against the gross injustice of being compelled (by your own circumstances) to work at all?
terrible conditions that all employers conspire to adopt
The fact that it's not exactly in the format you want or dumbed down enough for you to understand is not my problem.
It is your problem — you answered my challenge (for the second time in a month) and failed.
The links are in 30 different references at the bottom that the paper cites with enough information for you to look them up.
If it were this easy, you would've done it yourself long ago instead of extending this silly thread well beyond the point, where your inability to meet my challenge became painfully obvious.
you refuse to meet me half way and address what the paper says
I don't want to argue with somebody else's words — history of this very thread shows, how easy it is for you to throw other people statements under the proverbial bus:
"Maslowski's colleagues didn't agree with him", you said,
"Al Gore is an asshole" (dave420 implied — without any objections from you),
"Viner was talking to a popular publication, rather than a peer-reviewed magazine" (as if it makes any difference)
— whatever. Like I said already, I don't want to think through an argument only to find myself attacking something you consider inconsequential...
When you asked for an example, I gave you some — summarizing both the failed predictions and their disproofs in my own words instead of simply referring you to other people's articles (ofwhich there areplenty). Because to do otherwise — as seems your wont — is to appeal to authority.
You knew, what the "format" needs to be from the beginning. That you could not meet it is not my fault — it is your failure. Or, more likely, it is the failure of this belief, which you continue to call "science".
You're arguing like a lawyer, not a scientist.
I'm not a scientist — nor do I need to be in order to be convinced (rather than compelled) to do something about "the dangers of humanity's contribution to global warming". I am just a somewhat educated man, who knows of humanity's long history of fads and beliefs, and is aware of some of the scientific and philosophical mechanisms invented to help prevent our falling into the same holes and stepping on the same rakes again...
(Khm, an up-moded ad-hominem — I must be deep into a hostile territory...)
Well, the "contract of adhesion", according to your own link, is one characterized by:
nature of the assent
the possibility of unfair surprise,
lack of notice,
unequal bargaining power,
substantive unfairness
So long as we are talking about college-educated engineers, rather than illiterate farmers "signing" away their land with a thumb-print in exchange for a sack of grain, I don't believe any of the above-listed characteristics apply. In other words, your statement — which you posted without any substantiation as if it were self-evident — is, in fact, completely wrong.
Your link also, interestingly, leaves the determination of whether a particular contract (or a provision thereof) should be invalidated as "adhesive" to the Judiciary, rather than the Legislature as TFA suggests...
people are compelled to work lest they starve or lose their place of residence or become unable to provide for children, and thus may have no choice but to accept employment terms they'd rather not.
Most people would not accept any employment, if it was not for prospect of starvation and those other problems you listed.
So long as we agree, that being "compelled to work" for a living is acceptable, why can't the employers ask for anything from would-be employees?
It's only freedom if both parties are equal in the negotiations. That is rarely the case in employment contracts.
Both parties enter into the agreement willingly, without either side being compelled — that's all, that matters.
Since a free market is, almost inherently, impossible
Huh?
it is a choice between being regulated by the more powerful of the two parties, or by an outside third party
Not at all. If you don't like the terms offered — walk away. Instead, it is being suggested, we enter into the contracts, that we do not intend to honor and then ask the "outside third party" (government) to let us weasel out.
Only one side of the contract would agree with you.
Then you don't mind if I take a hit out on your life? I mean, its just a contract, the fact its to kill someone doesn't outweigh my liberty to enter into it, does it?
Your analogy "isn't even wrong".You never had the liberty to kill me, no matter what contract you may have entered into with someone else.
On the other hand, you do have the liberty to work for anyone, who'd want you (until they read the above stupid post of yours, of course). You can choose to sign that liberty away in exchange for employment (or more favorable terms of employment).
Banning enforcement of certain aspects of a contract may be useful. But it deprives the parties of the freedom to meaningfully enter into such contracts, and I'm not at all sure, the utility ought to outweigh the liberty.
Frankly if your scientific knowledge is so poor you can't parse out what they are saying
Wow... All these posts, all this indignation — instead of simply posting the expected links...
They presented graphs that compared IPCC projections of temperatures and sea level rise from 2001 and 2007 to observations through 2011
They did? Well, if so, where are the links to those projections? Post them and be done instead of, indeed, wasting time yours and mine.
I could link to the relevant sections of the IPCC AR3 and AR4 reports then to papers on observations separately but you would have a harder time parsing them
Thank you. Maybe, those papers really aren't suitable for the general public, that you want to convince. Or, maybe, they simply do not really contain the concrete and refutable (falsifiable) projections. Either way, you failed my challenge (for the second time)...
Because this would've been your sole example (valid or otherwise), and you'd need more than one in order to do better, than a broken clock...
I don't have the time to hand everything to you on a silver platter.
Ah, the "lack of time" excuse — sure...
You keep claiming "science is settled" — but, when asked for falsifiable conclusions of this science, you are unable to come up with any. (The statement like "Arctic Ocean will be ice-free" is not falsifiable, for example, and therefor is not scientific.) And not just you — other believers cheering you on (and modding me down) are just as helpless as you are...
What is settled about Arctic sea ice is that it's disappearing.
Well, if it were "settled", there would've been a scientific theory behind it. And for anything to be a scientific theory, it needs to (among other things) be testable — and, indeed, tested — confirmed by exactly the method I'm describing: making predictions and confirming them.
Worse (for you) — a scientific theory also needs to be falsifiable (also known as "refutable") — but not, actually, refuted... This "settled science" of yours is wanting in both of these requirements.
Did you even bother to read the iop paper I sent you?
I did, and could not understand, what to look for.
What difference does it make that it's all in one link? Is that really so hard to understand?
It is. I don't want to make assumptions as to what you meant and work myself up against (what will turn out to be) strawmen.
Either post separate links to prediction and materialization, of retreat.
The source for that wasn't a peer reviewed published paper but an interview with a journalist.
That's fine — I don't insist, your examples must come from a scientific magazine either.
So he wasn't saying it would never snow
He did say: "Children just aren't going to know what snow is". That means, it was not going to snow — in his opinion.
The ice free prediction by Maslowski was peer reviewed science but it was at odds with a lot of other predictions at the time.
Didn't prevent Al Gore from parroting it, did it? But fine, you can quote predictions, which were likewise disapproved by the predictor's peers at the time too.
So while Maslowski's projection may not be correct it was far from the only scientific opinion about it at the time.
In other words, contrary to frequent assertions, the science is not settled.
Next you'll be arguing that ISPs aren't allowed to block email spam and known phishing sites either because "net neutrality".
Yes, as a matter of fact, this would be another manifestation of unintended consequence of government's mis- and micromanagement of the ISPs. Unless the laws has special provisions for such abuse-fighting, any sort of blocking — however legitimate 2 years ago — would now be illegal. And I doubt it has such provisions, because legally defining spam — as opposite to some kind of "hey stranger" speech — is notoriously difficult.
And god forbid they do anything at all to stop a DoS attack... because that would require treating some packets unequally.
Indeed. And it will suck — if NetFlix decides to offer some sort of "1 free week of HD special" for non-subscribers, DoS may be exactly how it will appear to the ISPs.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with government/law enforcement ordered takedowns.
Unless European Net Neutrality explicitly allows exceptions for such court-orders (and you seem to say, it "has nothing to do with" it), British courts ordering the blocking are in violation of the Europe-wide legislation.
Its simply non-discrimination of data.
Blocking a server completely is an ultimate "discrimination", wouldn't you say?
At this point I think you need to provide us with an example where it failed with paired links so we have a better idea of what you're looking for.
I am not a particularly involved student of this field, so my links would be of the popular kind, for which I apologize in advance. But here it is:
In 2000 Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, predicted that "Children just aren't going to know what snow is". It is now 2015 and there has not been a snow-free winter in the UK since. Some were particularly snowy: 2014-15, 20122010-11.
Now, I'm not prepared to argue the validity of the above claims — all you asked for were samples of what I'm looking for.
Of course, your samples would have to be valid — because you want me (and the rest of humanity) to change our way of life. The burden of proof is thus on you.
While that's an interesting plot for a Sci-Fi story, forcing someone to modify their body would amount to corporal punishment.
As long as it is not cruel, it will be argued, it is fine... Besides, I'm not talking criminal punishment — you may find yourself "voluntarily agreeing" to a memory wipe in exchange for being allowed to see your children after divorce.
can't erase everyone's memory, photos and video of my abduction
Yes, you'll know you two once had fun together, but you would not be able to recall any of the details...
Which means it wouldn't be very useful for them in most circumstances except some form of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
How about erasing classified information from the heads of retiring (or fired) spooks — or even journalists? That would be useful for governments and can (will!) be made a condition for access to classified information.
Companies may also make it a condition for employment, that whatever you learned on the job be wiped out, should you decide to leave...
What about the previous holders of the office that did the same thing?
oh_my_080980980 made this assertion earlier today, was asked for citations, and disappeared. I notice, that your assertion is just as unsubstantiated as his was...
Should they be arrested or impeached
They — whether the set of them is empty or not — should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Or they are ok because it is your party and they will not be running against your candidate.
As far as I know, none of the previous Secretaries of State are running for any office. If they were, examining their record for signs of hypocrisy (and other bad things) would've certainly been valid.
they did not use the sample they had to invalidate the suspect they wrongfully convicted
Police didn't convict him — a jury did. This is an important difference.
Yes, police could've asked the court to vacate the judgement because of new evidence, but — in this particular case, according to TFA — they suspected there were multiple attackers.
Their being able to identify the new suspect promptly would've helped the convict — if he were innocent.
No, a reliable (inter)national database of DNA-samples and finger-prints would help police greatly — and any discussion should acknowledge this. The problem is, we may not trust them with such power — which is a different matter...
This, along with the already known way to simply wipe-out certain memories, can go a long way towards establishing the "Right To Be Forgotten". Your ex, for example, may be able to obtain a court order for you to undergo the procedure to remove your memories of all the good times you had together...
Or, if that seems too draconian, have those memories replaced by your taking a hike or flying a kite...
Police have their workflow already. For things that pass the standard, they can get what they need.
Suppose, as is the case described in TFA, they have a DNA-sample (or finger-print) from the crime-scene, for which no matches exist in police databases. Currently they have to look for him the old-fashioned way — and the sample is only useful to (in)validate the people.
If instead there existed a nation- or even Solar system-wide database of such samples for everyone, they'd have their identification in a few minutes... Major boon to law-enforcement.
Future subversives of an oppressive government will find a way.
a) There is a threshold, unfortunately, beyond which a sufficiently totalitarian government can not be dislodged from the inside. Cuba and North Korea are examples...
b) Plenty of people believe today, a single world-government is a good idea.
Once such a global world-government is implemented, should it ever go beyond the point of-no-return in totalitarianism, its overthrow would have to await a discovery of (or, rather, by) an alien civilization. And not just any alien civilization, but a benevolent one...
There is a subtle difference between expressing ones views and defending them
I'd argue, that the difference is merely quantitative — as in, how much you are willing to say (or do) in support of your opinion before shrugging and walking away. As opposite to qualitative — as in whether you are willing to say (or do) anything at all.
Though we all have some threshold, that quantity for each individual depends more on each personality and priorities (both lifetime and minute) than any kind of principled attitude.
The stupid arrangement left communications of the top American diplomat vulnerable — something Russia and other enemies would be happy to exploit on any day, but fine, a President is not supposed to be proficient in communication security.
But we should discard public servants at the first sign of hypocrisy — and that's exactly, what's on display here. And here...
Did what every other Secretary of State did in regards to email.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so you are one of those people, who resent having to work for a living — on any terms — yourself. Why, then, are you arguing against the finer points in (some) employment contracts, instead of arguing against the gross injustice of being compelled (by your own circumstances) to work at all?
Citations needed.
It is your problem — you answered my challenge (for the second time in a month) and failed.
If it were this easy, you would've done it yourself long ago instead of extending this silly thread well beyond the point, where your inability to meet my challenge became painfully obvious.
I don't want to argue with somebody else's words — history of this very thread shows, how easy it is for you to throw other people statements under the proverbial bus:
— whatever. Like I said already, I don't want to think through an argument only to find myself attacking something you consider inconsequential...
When you asked for an example, I gave you some — summarizing both the failed predictions and their disproofs in my own words instead of simply referring you to other people's articles (of which there are plenty). Because to do otherwise — as seems your wont — is to appeal to authority.
You knew, what the "format" needs to be from the beginning. That you could not meet it is not my fault — it is your failure. Or, more likely, it is the failure of this belief, which you continue to call "science".
I'm not a scientist — nor do I need to be in order to be convinced (rather than compelled ) to do something about "the dangers of humanity's contribution to global warming". I am just a somewhat educated man, who knows of humanity's long history of fads and beliefs, and is aware of some of the scientific and philosophical mechanisms invented to help prevent our falling into the same holes and stepping on the same rakes again...
(Khm, an up-moded ad-hominem — I must be deep into a hostile territory...)
Well, the "contract of adhesion", according to your own link, is one characterized by:
So long as we are talking about college-educated engineers, rather than illiterate farmers "signing" away their land with a thumb-print in exchange for a sack of grain, I don't believe any of the above-listed characteristics apply. In other words, your statement — which you posted without any substantiation as if it were self-evident — is, in fact, completely wrong.
Your link also, interestingly, leaves the determination of whether a particular contract (or a provision thereof) should be invalidated as "adhesive" to the Judiciary, rather than the Legislature as TFA suggests...
Most people would not accept any employment, if it was not for prospect of starvation and those other problems you listed.
So long as we agree, that being "compelled to work" for a living is acceptable, why can't the employers ask for anything from would-be employees?
Citation needed.
Why not? Nobody owes you anything. If you wish other people to pay you, you have to agree to those people's terms.
Both parties enter into the agreement willingly, without either side being compelled — that's all, that matters.
Huh?
Not at all. If you don't like the terms offered — walk away. Instead, it is being suggested, we enter into the contracts, that we do not intend to honor and then ask the "outside third party" (government) to let us weasel out.
Honest people on both sides would agree with me.
Your analogy "isn't even wrong".You never had the liberty to kill me, no matter what contract you may have entered into with someone else.
On the other hand, you do have the liberty to work for anyone, who'd want you (until they read the above stupid post of yours, of course). You can choose to sign that liberty away in exchange for employment (or more favorable terms of employment).
Banning enforcement of certain aspects of a contract may be useful. But it deprives the parties of the freedom to meaningfully enter into such contracts, and I'm not at all sure, the utility ought to outweigh the liberty.
In fact, I'm quite sure of the opposite...
Wow... All these posts, all this indignation — instead of simply posting the expected links...
They did? Well, if so, where are the links to those projections? Post them and be done instead of, indeed, wasting time yours and mine.
Thank you. Maybe, those papers really aren't suitable for the general public, that you want to convince. Or, maybe, they simply do not really contain the concrete and refutable (falsifiable) projections. Either way, you failed my challenge (for the second time)...
Because this would've been your sole example (valid or otherwise), and you'd need more than one in order to do better, than a broken clock...
Ah, the "lack of time" excuse — sure...
You keep claiming "science is settled" — but, when asked for falsifiable conclusions of this science, you are unable to come up with any. (The statement like "Arctic Ocean will be ice-free" is not falsifiable, for example, and therefor is not scientific.) And not just you — other believers cheering you on (and modding me down) are just as helpless as you are...
Well, if it were "settled", there would've been a scientific theory behind it. And for anything to be a scientific theory, it needs to (among other things) be testable — and, indeed, tested — confirmed by exactly the method I'm describing: making predictions and confirming them.
Worse (for you) — a scientific theory also needs to be falsifiable (also known as "refutable") — but not, actually, refuted... This "settled science" of yours is wanting in both of these requirements.
I did, and could not understand, what to look for.
It is. I don't want to make assumptions as to what you meant and work myself up against (what will turn out to be) strawmen.
Either post separate links to prediction and materialization, of retreat.
That's fine — I don't insist, your examples must come from a scientific magazine either.
He did say: "Children just aren't going to know what snow is". That means, it was not going to snow — in his opinion.
Didn't prevent Al Gore from parroting it, did it? But fine, you can quote predictions, which were likewise disapproved by the predictor's peers at the time too.
In other words, contrary to frequent assertions, the science is not settled.
I'm giving up... Just how can you call a single link a "twofer"? I gave you — and not for the first time — an example of the format:
Is it really so hard?
Yes, as a matter of fact, this would be another manifestation of unintended consequence of government's mis- and micromanagement of the ISPs. Unless the laws has special provisions for such abuse-fighting, any sort of blocking — however legitimate 2 years ago — would now be illegal. And I doubt it has such provisions, because legally defining spam — as opposite to some kind of "hey stranger" speech — is notoriously difficult.
Indeed. And it will suck — if NetFlix decides to offer some sort of "1 free week of HD special" for non-subscribers, DoS may be exactly how it will appear to the ISPs.
Unless European Net Neutrality explicitly allows exceptions for such court-orders (and you seem to say, it "has nothing to do with" it), British courts ordering the blocking are in violation of the Europe-wide legislation.
Blocking a server completely is an ultimate "discrimination", wouldn't you say?
Exactly. Blocking some servers means treating their data unequally and is therefor a violation.
Everything else is your (wishful) interpretation: go ahead and block, what vux984 does not care for, but keep his Netflix streaming along.
An "attack" can be subtle — like what I managed in this very subthread. You've now responded twice to defend your view from it...
I am not a particularly involved student of this field, so my links would be of the popular kind, for which I apologize in advance. But here it is:
Now, I'm not prepared to argue the validity of the above claims — all you asked for were samples of what I'm looking for.
Of course, your samples would have to be valid — because you want me (and the rest of humanity) to change our way of life. The burden of proof is thus on you.
Should not net-neutrality — accepted by European Parliament nearly a year ago — have prevented such (mis)treatment of certain IPs?
As long as it is not cruel, it will be argued, it is fine... Besides, I'm not talking criminal punishment — you may find yourself "voluntarily agreeing" to a memory wipe in exchange for being allowed to see your children after divorce.
Yes, you'll know you two once had fun together, but you would not be able to recall any of the details...
How about erasing classified information from the heads of retiring (or fired) spooks — or even journalists? That would be useful for governments and can (will!) be made a condition for access to classified information.
Companies may also make it a condition for employment, that whatever you learned on the job be wiped out, should you decide to leave...
It is — if all of your correspondents use secure servers connected by properly-encrypted links and maintained by professionals.
oh_my_080980980 made this assertion earlier today, was asked for citations, and disappeared. I notice, that your assertion is just as unsubstantiated as his was...
They — whether the set of them is empty or not — should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
As far as I know, none of the previous Secretaries of State are running for any office. If they were, examining their record for signs of hypocrisy (and other bad things) would've certainly been valid.
Police didn't convict him — a jury did. This is an important difference.
Yes, police could've asked the court to vacate the judgement because of new evidence, but — in this particular case, according to TFA — they suspected there were multiple attackers.
Their being able to identify the new suspect promptly would've helped the convict — if he were innocent.
No, a reliable (inter)national database of DNA-samples and finger-prints would help police greatly — and any discussion should acknowledge this. The problem is, we may not trust them with such power — which is a different matter...
This, along with the already known way to simply wipe-out certain memories, can go a long way towards establishing the "Right To Be Forgotten". Your ex, for example, may be able to obtain a court order for you to undergo the procedure to remove your memories of all the good times you had together...
Or, if that seems too draconian, have those memories replaced by your taking a hike or flying a kite...
No, some standards are more vague than others.
Suppose, as is the case described in TFA, they have a DNA-sample (or finger-print) from the crime-scene, for which no matches exist in police databases. Currently they have to look for him the old-fashioned way — and the sample is only useful to (in)validate the people.
If instead there existed a nation- or even Solar system-wide database of such samples for everyone, they'd have their identification in a few minutes... Major boon to law-enforcement.
a) There is a threshold, unfortunately, beyond which a sufficiently totalitarian government can not be dislodged from the inside. Cuba and North Korea are examples...
b) Plenty of people believe today, a single world-government is a good idea.
Once such a global world-government is implemented, should it ever go beyond the point of-no-return in totalitarianism, its overthrow would have to await a discovery of (or, rather, by) an alien civilization. And not just any alien civilization, but a benevolent one...
I'd argue, that the difference is merely quantitative — as in, how much you are willing to say (or do) in support of your opinion before shrugging and walking away. As opposite to qualitative — as in whether you are willing to say (or do) anything at all.
Though we all have some threshold, that quantity for each individual depends more on each personality and priorities (both lifetime and minute) than any kind of principled attitude.
Yes, she did. It may not have been against the law just yet, but it was certainly against the State Department's own rules already.
The stupid arrangement left communications of the top American diplomat vulnerable — something Russia and other enemies would be happy to exploit on any day, but fine, a President is not supposed to be proficient in communication security.
But we should discard public servants at the first sign of hypocrisy — and that's exactly, what's on display here. And here...
Citations needed.
Lovers gonna love.