It becomes a case of gold vs blood. Robots cost lots of money and take time to build. People less so. It could become a war of attrition.
With the proper skills, damaged robots can be reprogrammed, repaired, and then deployed, thus giving robots to both sides. And, that completely ignores the possibility of hacking the robots remotely.
You know what else would have prevented this overdose? Not doing drugs. Really simple way not to OD.
Re:People in powerful places
on
Losing Aaron
·
· Score: 1
In other words, those that enforce the law cared about whether he violated the law. You have proved my point.
Re:People in powerful places
on
Losing Aaron
·
· Score: 0
All I hear is you saying that you don't like the penalties for the crimes he committed. Arguing that I should change my tune because you might call me names is both a weak appeal to consequence and a threat to resort to ad hominem which tells me you know your argument is untenable. Go ahead, call names and prove what is implied by your last line.
Probably the biggest misconception you have put forth is that JSTOR had a say in the prosecution. The victim of a crime doesn't decide if a perpetrator is tried, rather the state does. Personally, I have not seen a statement from JSTOR saying they didn't want Swartz prosecuted, rather that they had no say in the matter which is entirely different.
Re:People in powerful places
on
Losing Aaron
·
· Score: 1
If no one cared about what was done, he wouldn't not have been prosecuted, therefore your entire line of reasoning is false.
Re:People in powerful places
on
Losing Aaron
·
· Score: 0
The possible penalties for his crime are right there in the law. He should have educated himself on them before committing his crime. You think his crime deserved a slap on the wrist because you like what he did. The prosecutor didn't share your view and was willing to ask for the maximum penalty. Of course, the prosecutor doesn't set the penalty, that is for the judge to decide. Because of that, the proper move for the prosecutor is to always seek the maximum penalty because the judge can impose whatever sentence the judge wishes within the bounds of the law which often means less than what the prosecution asks for AND it encourages defendants to make a deal and save the expense of prosecution.
Re:People in powerful places
on
Losing Aaron
·
· Score: 0
When you say "victims" to whom are you referring?
The possible penalties are set by law to the crimes committed. He should have educated himself on the crimes he was committing and the possible penalties, as should you.
Re:People in powerful places
on
Losing Aaron
·
· Score: -1, Troll
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. He didn't behave like an intelligent adult. He behaved like a child thinking the worst he would get is dressed down and maybe a slap on the wrist.
A state government outlawed the use of drones by a private group to harass and/or spy on a group or class of citizens. This can be the basis to extend the law to be against against the use of drones by private individuals, corporations, and businesses to harass, spy, and advertise.
BTW, those who are comparing PETA to the NSA and other government agencies are making a false comparison. PETA is a private organization that would be violating the privacy and personal freedom of people. They are not a governmental agency and most of the governmental agencies in the comments so far do not fall under the jurisdiction of state governments.
He didn't release it just to the American public. He released to the entire world which includes North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda and it's various children. Or, did you forget those?
No, it would not. The age of a 35 year old in minutes would be 18,408,600. 30 minutes would roughly 0.00163% of that. Terra is approximately 4 billion years old. Simple math yields 6,518 years, not one year. The time frame I provided was actually six times longer than the time frame looked at by the scientists. That also means that we should be looking at the last five minutes, not the last 30. In both cases, the time frame is too short
Now, to your second point, seeing climate change and showing that it is caused by humans is different things. Most of what I see is people saying "the climate has changed in the last 200 years and the industrial revolution started 200 years ago so climate change must have been caused by humans", which is the questionable cause fallacy.
If a for-profit business isn't making at least as much money "today" as it was "yesterday" then it is a failing concern. All for-profit business want to make more money because it is the measure of a businesses success.
You are using an overly broad generalization to makes something seem true that is, in fact, false. Specifically, which diseases can be cured but haven't been so only "treatments" exist? How do you know a cure is not only achievable but also viable?
Let us look at HIV/AIDS. A patient with both HIV and Leukemia received a bone marrow transplant from a donor who had a natural mutation which made him basically immune to HIV (malformed CCR5 receptor). The patient appears to have been cured. So, the cure for HIV is to destroy the patient's bone marrow, harvest bone marrow from an HIV immune donor, and place it into the patient. Of course, the harvesting procedure is painful and the immunity is vanishingly rare so there will be few donors and each donor can only help a single patient. Unless we are willing to enslave and torture people who are immune and hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient to provide each one with a bone marrow transplant, that cure is not viable.
Basically, you are committing a version of the composition fallacy by saying "Some diseases have been cured with current technology therefore all diseases can be cured with current technology."
My sources also say it is between 160,000 and 600,000 metric tons per day, not per year. That would be 138.7 gigatons per year. Perhaps you should take a reading course, AC.
he believes the virtual currency should be returned to him because Bitcoins are "not subject to seizure" by federal law.
See the bolded part?
Both you and Ulbricht don't get it. What you believe has no bearing on reality.
Ulbricht isn't claiming that the government violated the constitution. He is claiming Bitcoins aren't property and thus can't be seized under federal law. That is for a judge to decide, but lawyers don't think he will prevail because intangible property is still property and federal law allows for the seizure property that are the products, or purchased with the products, of federal criminal acts.
Unless you were at Waco, you don't know what happened at Waco.
Why is the climate from 2 billion years ago relevant now? Let me ask you, If we looked at what you have done for the last 30 minutes, would we be able to tell what is "normal" for you? If you spent the last 30 minutes sitting down, should we be shocked if you try to stand up and try to keep you sitting down because that is what you have done for the last 30 minutes? What if you hadn't eaten or drank anything in that time, should we try to stop you from eating or drinking because you haven't done so in the last 30 minutes so it isn't "normal" for you?
Kilauea discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day. That is a single volcano. Roughly 20 volcanoes are erupting at any given time. That would mean that between 160,000 and 600,000 metric tonnes of CO2 are being put into the atmosphere by volcanoes every single day.
Global emissions of carbon dioxide by people in a recent year totaled over 30 gigatonnes (or 30 Gt), That is roughly 82,000 metric tones per day from humans. That is between one half and one seventh the amount put out by volcanoes. While the GPAC overstates the amount, he is not as wrong as you are.
Let's see, that is the last 0.000025% of Terra's 4 billion year age. That is the equivalent of deciding what is normal for a 35 year old man by looking at what he did in last 20 minutes. What would someone decide is normal for you if they looked at the last 20 minutes of your life?
I am very interested to know how this researcher determined solar output for the last 1000 years with no records.
As near as I can tell, this is simply a rehash of other people's research say "I concur with what they said even though I did no actual research"
Slashdot Mirror
It becomes a case of gold vs blood. Robots cost lots of money and take time to build. People less so. It could become a war of attrition.
With the proper skills, damaged robots can be reprogrammed, repaired, and then deployed, thus giving robots to both sides. And, that completely ignores the possibility of hacking the robots remotely.
Maybe you should ask Europe about that
Yes, damn those druggies because they don't have to be doing drugs at all, asshole.
You know what else would have prevented this overdose? Not doing drugs. Really simple way not to OD.
In other words, those that enforce the law cared about whether he violated the law. You have proved my point.
All I hear is you saying that you don't like the penalties for the crimes he committed. Arguing that I should change my tune because you might call me names is both a weak appeal to consequence and a threat to resort to ad hominem which tells me you know your argument is untenable. Go ahead, call names and prove what is implied by your last line.
Probably the biggest misconception you have put forth is that JSTOR had a say in the prosecution. The victim of a crime doesn't decide if a perpetrator is tried, rather the state does. Personally, I have not seen a statement from JSTOR saying they didn't want Swartz prosecuted, rather that they had no say in the matter which is entirely different.
If no one cared about what was done, he wouldn't not have been prosecuted, therefore your entire line of reasoning is false.
The possible penalties for his crime are right there in the law. He should have educated himself on them before committing his crime. You think his crime deserved a slap on the wrist because you like what he did. The prosecutor didn't share your view and was willing to ask for the maximum penalty. Of course, the prosecutor doesn't set the penalty, that is for the judge to decide. Because of that, the proper move for the prosecutor is to always seek the maximum penalty because the judge can impose whatever sentence the judge wishes within the bounds of the law which often means less than what the prosecution asks for AND it encourages defendants to make a deal and save the expense of prosecution.
When you say "victims" to whom are you referring?
The possible penalties are set by law to the crimes committed. He should have educated himself on the crimes he was committing and the possible penalties, as should you.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. He didn't behave like an intelligent adult. He behaved like a child thinking the worst he would get is dressed down and maybe a slap on the wrist.
A state government outlawed the use of drones by a private group to harass and/or spy on a group or class of citizens. This can be the basis to extend the law to be against against the use of drones by private individuals, corporations, and businesses to harass, spy, and advertise.
BTW, those who are comparing PETA to the NSA and other government agencies are making a false comparison. PETA is a private organization that would be violating the privacy and personal freedom of people. They are not a governmental agency and most of the governmental agencies in the comments so far do not fall under the jurisdiction of state governments.
He didn't release it just to the American public. He released to the entire world which includes North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda and it's various children. Or, did you forget those?
No, it would not. The age of a 35 year old in minutes would be 18,408,600. 30 minutes would roughly 0.00163% of that. Terra is approximately 4 billion years old. Simple math yields 6,518 years, not one year. The time frame I provided was actually six times longer than the time frame looked at by the scientists. That also means that we should be looking at the last five minutes, not the last 30. In both cases, the time frame is too short
Now, to your second point, seeing climate change and showing that it is caused by humans is different things. Most of what I see is people saying "the climate has changed in the last 200 years and the industrial revolution started 200 years ago so climate change must have been caused by humans", which is the questionable cause fallacy.
If a for-profit business isn't making at least as much money "today" as it was "yesterday" then it is a failing concern. All for-profit business want to make more money because it is the measure of a businesses success.
You are using an overly broad generalization to makes something seem true that is, in fact, false. Specifically, which diseases can be cured but haven't been so only "treatments" exist? How do you know a cure is not only achievable but also viable?
Let us look at HIV/AIDS. A patient with both HIV and Leukemia received a bone marrow transplant from a donor who had a natural mutation which made him basically immune to HIV (malformed CCR5 receptor). The patient appears to have been cured. So, the cure for HIV is to destroy the patient's bone marrow, harvest bone marrow from an HIV immune donor, and place it into the patient. Of course, the harvesting procedure is painful and the immunity is vanishingly rare so there will be few donors and each donor can only help a single patient. Unless we are willing to enslave and torture people who are immune and hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient to provide each one with a bone marrow transplant, that cure is not viable.
Basically, you are committing a version of the composition fallacy by saying "Some diseases have been cured with current technology therefore all diseases can be cured with current technology."
You are right, I dropped a zero. I concede your point.
My sources also say it is between 160,000 and 600,000 metric tons per day, not per year. That would be 138.7 gigatons per year. Perhaps you should take a reading course, AC.
Intangible property is still property, it is even taxed. So, his argument won't work.
Moneys are not auctioned off. They are converted into U.S. dollars and added to various budgets.
His basic argument is that BTC are not property because they are intangible, and thus no subject to seizure under federal law.
he believes the virtual currency should be returned to him because Bitcoins are "not subject to seizure" by federal law.
See the bolded part?
Both you and Ulbricht don't get it. What you believe has no bearing on reality.
Ulbricht isn't claiming that the government violated the constitution. He is claiming Bitcoins aren't property and thus can't be seized under federal law. That is for a judge to decide, but lawyers don't think he will prevail because intangible property is still property and federal law allows for the seizure property that are the products, or purchased with the products, of federal criminal acts.
Unless you were at Waco, you don't know what happened at Waco.
And, they are suggesting that without actually knowing what the solar variability was.
Why is the climate from 2 billion years ago relevant now? Let me ask you, If we looked at what you have done for the last 30 minutes, would we be able to tell what is "normal" for you? If you spent the last 30 minutes sitting down, should we be shocked if you try to stand up and try to keep you sitting down because that is what you have done for the last 30 minutes? What if you hadn't eaten or drank anything in that time, should we try to stop you from eating or drinking because you haven't done so in the last 30 minutes so it isn't "normal" for you?
Kilauea discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day. That is a single volcano. Roughly 20 volcanoes are erupting at any given time. That would mean that between 160,000 and 600,000 metric tonnes of CO2 are being put into the atmosphere by volcanoes every single day.
Global emissions of carbon dioxide by people in a recent year totaled over 30 gigatonnes (or 30 Gt), That is roughly 82,000 metric tones per day from humans. That is between one half and one seventh the amount put out by volcanoes. While the GPAC overstates the amount, he is not as wrong as you are.
Sources:
http://www.volcano.si.edu/faq.cfm#q3
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/insights/authors/derektaylor/2011/11/11/how-much-carbon-dioxide
Let's see, that is the last 0.000025% of Terra's 4 billion year age. That is the equivalent of deciding what is normal for a 35 year old man by looking at what he did in last 20 minutes. What would someone decide is normal for you if they looked at the last 20 minutes of your life?
I am very interested to know how this researcher determined solar output for the last 1000 years with no records.
As near as I can tell, this is simply a rehash of other people's research say "I concur with what they said even though I did no actual research"
You read too much into it hoping it wasn't exactly what it looked like.