The "Stanford Experiment" was a joke. They chose white-bread middle-class people. Of course these test subjects will do whatever the f*ck they're told to do. If it means being mean, they'll love the chance to cast off the chains of good behavior and be as mean as possible.
They wouldn't last 1 hour with lower class subjects as prisoners, who you can be sure at a few won't take that shit, because they already know that obeying assholes with authority is stupid, that putting fear into the guards is the way to go.
Talk to any prison guard, they'll tell you the inmates run the place. Remember the song "Me and Bobbie McGee?" - "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose." When you've got people who have little to lose, you'd better tread carefully, because one slip and you're dead. Just takes one guy, everyone will follow.
You'd need 1 guard per prisoner, continuously, and even then... so in real life everyone on both sides polices their own to make sure the unwritten rules are followed. Guards make sure the bad eggs among them don't get so out of hand as to jeopardize their own individual safety, and prisoners make sure that, as long as the guards behave, the other prisoners don't ruin things for everyone.
They mentioned juveniles as well in the Wikipedia article. Don't think that kids haven't got it figured out - they learn really fast. Just goes to show that the majority of experiments have results that are not applicable in real life.
All the more reason to have the discussion about euthanasia and advanced medical directives for the withdrawal of all treatment (including feeding tubes, etc) except pain killers where euthanasia isn't yet available.
Be careful - it's not illegal to commit suicide (kind of hard to punish someone who succeeds) - but it is still illegal to counsel someone to commit suicide. As long as you are not urging them to do so, just describing scenarios as to the mechanics without giving encouragement as to them actually killing themselves, you probably aren't counseling them to commit suicide. But you can never be sure, so best do it in private, long before they feel it is necessary.
Their "parents" are no longer there. The person they were is gone. That's one reason it's important to let everyone know that in the event of something that causes you to not recognize people, not know what you're doing, etc, that they authorize the withdrawal of all support, including hydration and food, and only allow pain medication. It's euthanasia by the back door, and perfectly legal, because it is the patients' wishes that must be respected. Treating a patient who has refused care is assault.
That's what a DNR is also for. It's not right to burden your kids with this sort of shit - and you wouldn't consider keeping a useless body and a minimally functioning brain alive unless you're a coward who fears death more than they love their family, in which case you're a selfish asshole.
Follow the thread. It says that originally everything was supposed to be accomplished using only a keyboard, for those computers that didn't have a mouse or other pointing device. Your touch screen is NOT a keyboard.
My response was to the poster who demanded that I provide even one incident where the US interfered in a foreign election, and I provided several. Let's also not exclude Great Britain, who, seeing that Iran had elected someone who was going to nationalize the oil industry, including British assets, asked the US to intervene. The CIA did so, with the result being a coup and the installation by the US of the shah of Iran.
I'm pretty sure there are other countries that are also in their own ways responsible for the mess in the middle east.
A true verdict according to the evidence in some cases indicates that applying the law is unjust. And no, the jury's job is not just to decide if the defendant did what they are accused of, but also if it amounts to a crime. In the case of an unjust application of the law, they are free even under their oath to render a verdict taking into account all the evidence - including the law - and weighing it as they see fit. The law is also part of the evidence, and as such equally under judgment by a jury.
An example in the US - under the 3 strikes law, the 3rd strike has severe consequences that may not be appropriate. In one case, the accused was a mentally retarded adult who stole a bicycle. His two previous crimes were equally mundane. Clearly a life sentence is not appropriate - the jury can judge the crime doesn't fit the punishment, and say not guilty because, in their collective wisdom, the person didn't commit a crime that warranted a life sentence.
Tragic results? If you're that far gone and could do it over, you'd probably pull the trigger or jump in front of a subway or overdose on whatever you can get your hands on before then.
Wrong. The most the judge can do is declare a mis-trial. Declaring the alleged perp in contempt of court is too prejudicial to the jury to continue the trial. So, keep getting mis-trials until they get tired of it - or if the judge doesn't declare a mis-trial, move for one on that basis. Or if the judge still refuses, appeal on the basis that the judge's actions were prejudicial to you.
A lawyer representing you can't do that because when a lawyer is held to be in contempt of court it has nothing to do with your guilt or innocence.
The judge can interrupt if they want and tell the to ignore the argument, but until the jury has made their deliberation, the judge has no way of knowing what effect, if any, it has on the case. So no, the judge won't swap jurors out during the trial.
What judges have done is grilled the jurors and demanded they change their decision to be in line with the law, and jurors have said nope, we represent the people, and we don't believe anyone could find the law just in these circumstances. That's how we struck down the anti-abortion laws here. 3 separate juries, in 3 separate trials of the same case (here "double jeopardy" doesn't exist, so you can be re-tried on the same evidence if found innocent), refused to render a guilty verdict, despite acknowledging under questioning by the judge that the law requires it.
The case eventually ended up in front of the Supreme Court, where the law against abortion was found to be unconstitutional. A subsequent case that ended up in front of them found that a fetus is not a human being, and therefore has no legal rights. This is why, if a pregnant woman is murdered, the alleged killer isn't charged with 2 murders (the woman and the fetus).
Really? Then how come, when the original spec was that everything could be done with only a keyboard, do we now require a mouse for so much? Try dragging the toolbar from the bottom to the top without a mouse. Ain't so easy after all.
As if the government doesn't already lie in trials? Not turning over exculpatory evidence, continuing to argue for a conviction even when they finally realize that they are wrong, Not letting the defence know that they've uncovered an eye witness who disputes the alleged facts. Claiming a test result is beyond a reasonable doubt when it isn't?
Even in trials without a jury, if you don't offer the judge the opportunity to overrule an unjust law in your particular circumstances, it's not going to happen. People argue against unjust application of laws all the time, based on things like necessity and justification.
Christmas isn't about job preparation - it's about fun and family and being happy for what you have. Why not take a break from nerd-dom and go watch "The Ultimate Gift"?
Screw lego and mindstorm and mechano. Your kids would probably prefer a guitar, especially since their peers will see it as a cool gift. It's something that is hard for them to learn but will give them a well-deserved boost in self-esteem each time they learn something new. It's also a gender-neutral gift, so no issues there.
Plus, there's the opportunity to bond by teaching them to play Stairway to Heaven, etc. The Stones ain't dead yet.
So fire your lawyer and state the truth yourself if they're too chicken-shit to oppose a bad law. Insist on a jury trial. Jurors are getting pretty good at the whole jury nullification thing. BTW, it is NOT illegal to tell the jury they can nullify the law - just that judges don't like it and will punish you for it - and their doing so will make the jury distrust the whole legal system.
Also, appeals courts have set aside convictions based on things like handing out flyers outside of courthouses to let jurors know their right to nullify a law, as well as convictions where no jury is present.
It most certainly is illegal in situations where one person is in a position of authority over another. Or are you going to say that the grade 3 teacher should be allowed to hit on students? Or the psychiatrist or other MD hit on their patients? Or the prison guard hit on inmates? Or cops on subjects they're considering arresting, with the implied message that a blow job will set them free? Or a Greyhound bus driver to the last passenger at night on a country road? Now replace "Greyhound bus driver" with "Uber driver."
How about if the driver in your example, instead of saying "Hey, wanna fuck" says "Hey, wanna give me all your money?" He hasn't made an overt threat, but there certainly is an implied one at 2am.
Infinite scrolling: That's just millennials doing this crap, following "Buzz Lightyear - To Infinity and Beyond". I've seen sites that, whenever you try to click on one of the links in the footer, the footer just scrolls away before you can. Retards.
And yet it still breaks the back button, because people DO expect only an overlay that suddenly popped up after the page was rendered to disappear when they click the back button, not the whole damn page.
Mind you, any site that pops up an overlay that blocks what I'm trying to read with something like "give us your email address to receive blah blah blah", I'm quite happy to leave anyway. I'd label such cases as BROKEN_DO_NOT_FIX.
Web and HTML isn't the same beast it was 20+ years ago. It is considered more of a thin-client interface protocol then a document reader.
No, it was considered a document reader, period. How it rendered the documents was entirely up to the client, but only basic content such as text and (some) images were supported - very poorly. It was for reading documents, including plaintext. The servers would serve up documents, in either plaintext or html. HTML was a type of document, not a protocol. The protocol was http: or file: for local files (which never required the "web"), HTML was a document standard, not protocol.
On a side note, the standard was f*cked from the beginning, and even Berniers-Lee now admits he made a mistake. The TLD should have been after the protocol spec and before the rest of the url, - http://org.slashdot.index.html... instead of http://slashdot.org/index.html. There were a lot of other stupidities in the spec as well, soch as calling a link an anchor tag. How stupid and counter-intuitive is this?
No, it was copnsidered a document reader.
Slashdot Mirror
The "Stanford Experiment" was a joke. They chose white-bread middle-class people. Of course these test subjects will do whatever the f*ck they're told to do. If it means being mean, they'll love the chance to cast off the chains of good behavior and be as mean as possible.
They wouldn't last 1 hour with lower class subjects as prisoners, who you can be sure at a few won't take that shit, because they already know that obeying assholes with authority is stupid, that putting fear into the guards is the way to go.
Talk to any prison guard, they'll tell you the inmates run the place. Remember the song "Me and Bobbie McGee?" - "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose." When you've got people who have little to lose, you'd better tread carefully, because one slip and you're dead. Just takes one guy, everyone will follow.
You'd need 1 guard per prisoner, continuously, and even then ... so in real life everyone on both sides polices their own to make sure the unwritten rules are followed. Guards make sure the bad eggs among them don't get so out of hand as to jeopardize their own individual safety, and prisoners make sure that, as long as the guards behave, the other prisoners don't ruin things for everyone.
They mentioned juveniles as well in the Wikipedia article. Don't think that kids haven't got it figured out - they learn really fast. Just goes to show that the majority of experiments have results that are not applicable in real life.
You completely forgot the tld in your example.
There's no hotkey to bring up the show/hide taskbar dialog. You need to install an add-on to do that.
Coercion, which is encoded in the law as a duress crime, is a criminal act.
All the more reason to have the discussion about euthanasia and advanced medical directives for the withdrawal of all treatment (including feeding tubes, etc) except pain killers where euthanasia isn't yet available.
Be careful - it's not illegal to commit suicide (kind of hard to punish someone who succeeds) - but it is still illegal to counsel someone to commit suicide. As long as you are not urging them to do so, just describing scenarios as to the mechanics without giving encouragement as to them actually killing themselves, you probably aren't counseling them to commit suicide. But you can never be sure, so best do it in private, long before they feel it is necessary.
Their "parents" are no longer there. The person they were is gone. That's one reason it's important to let everyone know that in the event of something that causes you to not recognize people, not know what you're doing, etc, that they authorize the withdrawal of all support, including hydration and food, and only allow pain medication. It's euthanasia by the back door, and perfectly legal, because it is the patients' wishes that must be respected. Treating a patient who has refused care is assault.
That's what a DNR is also for. It's not right to burden your kids with this sort of shit - and you wouldn't consider keeping a useless body and a minimally functioning brain alive unless you're a coward who fears death more than they love their family, in which case you're a selfish asshole.
Follow the thread. It says that originally everything was supposed to be accomplished using only a keyboard, for those computers that didn't have a mouse or other pointing device. Your touch screen is NOT a keyboard.
My response was to the poster who demanded that I provide even one incident where the US interfered in a foreign election, and I provided several. Let's also not exclude Great Britain, who, seeing that Iran had elected someone who was going to nationalize the oil industry, including British assets, asked the US to intervene. The CIA did so, with the result being a coup and the installation by the US of the shah of Iran.
I'm pretty sure there are other countries that are also in their own ways responsible for the mess in the middle east.
A true verdict according to the evidence in some cases indicates that applying the law is unjust. And no, the jury's job is not just to decide if the defendant did what they are accused of, but also if it amounts to a crime. In the case of an unjust application of the law, they are free even under their oath to render a verdict taking into account all the evidence - including the law - and weighing it as they see fit. The law is also part of the evidence, and as such equally under judgment by a jury.
An example in the US - under the 3 strikes law, the 3rd strike has severe consequences that may not be appropriate. In one case, the accused was a mentally retarded adult who stole a bicycle. His two previous crimes were equally mundane. Clearly a life sentence is not appropriate - the jury can judge the crime doesn't fit the punishment, and say not guilty because, in their collective wisdom, the person didn't commit a crime that warranted a life sentence.
Sorry, but it really grinds my gears to hear someone continually saying "object-orientated."
Tragic results? If you're that far gone and could do it over, you'd probably pull the trigger or jump in front of a subway or overdose on whatever you can get your hands on before then.
Wrong. The most the judge can do is declare a mis-trial. Declaring the alleged perp in contempt of court is too prejudicial to the jury to continue the trial. So, keep getting mis-trials until they get tired of it - or if the judge doesn't declare a mis-trial, move for one on that basis. Or if the judge still refuses, appeal on the basis that the judge's actions were prejudicial to you.
A lawyer representing you can't do that because when a lawyer is held to be in contempt of court it has nothing to do with your guilt or innocence.
The judge can interrupt if they want and tell the to ignore the argument, but until the jury has made their deliberation, the judge has no way of knowing what effect, if any, it has on the case. So no, the judge won't swap jurors out during the trial.
What judges have done is grilled the jurors and demanded they change their decision to be in line with the law, and jurors have said nope, we represent the people, and we don't believe anyone could find the law just in these circumstances. That's how we struck down the anti-abortion laws here. 3 separate juries, in 3 separate trials of the same case (here "double jeopardy" doesn't exist, so you can be re-tried on the same evidence if found innocent), refused to render a guilty verdict, despite acknowledging under questioning by the judge that the law requires it.
The case eventually ended up in front of the Supreme Court, where the law against abortion was found to be unconstitutional. A subsequent case that ended up in front of them found that a fetus is not a human being, and therefore has no legal rights. This is why, if a pregnant woman is murdered, the alleged killer isn't charged with 2 murders (the woman and the fetus).
Really? Then how come, when the original spec was that everything could be done with only a keyboard, do we now require a mouse for so much? Try dragging the toolbar from the bottom to the top without a mouse. Ain't so easy after all.
As if the government doesn't already lie in trials? Not turning over exculpatory evidence, continuing to argue for a conviction even when they finally realize that they are wrong, Not letting the defence know that they've uncovered an eye witness who disputes the alleged facts. Claiming a test result is beyond a reasonable doubt when it isn't?
Even in trials without a jury, if you don't offer the judge the opportunity to overrule an unjust law in your particular circumstances, it's not going to happen. People argue against unjust application of laws all the time, based on things like necessity and justification.
Because the world needs even more musicians. Not.
Christmas isn't about job preparation - it's about fun and family and being happy for what you have. Why not take a break from nerd-dom and go watch "The Ultimate Gift"?
Screw lego and mindstorm and mechano. Your kids would probably prefer a guitar, especially since their peers will see it as a cool gift. It's something that is hard for them to learn but will give them a well-deserved boost in self-esteem each time they learn something new. It's also a gender-neutral gift, so no issues there.
Plus, there's the opportunity to bond by teaching them to play Stairway to Heaven, etc. The Stones ain't dead yet.
So fire your lawyer and state the truth yourself if they're too chicken-shit to oppose a bad law. Insist on a jury trial. Jurors are getting pretty good at the whole jury nullification thing. BTW, it is NOT illegal to tell the jury they can nullify the law - just that judges don't like it and will punish you for it - and their doing so will make the jury distrust the whole legal system.
Also, appeals courts have set aside convictions based on things like handing out flyers outside of courthouses to let jurors know their right to nullify a law, as well as convictions where no jury is present.
It most certainly is illegal in situations where one person is in a position of authority over another. Or are you going to say that the grade 3 teacher should be allowed to hit on students? Or the psychiatrist or other MD hit on their patients? Or the prison guard hit on inmates? Or cops on subjects they're considering arresting, with the implied message that a blow job will set them free? Or a Greyhound bus driver to the last passenger at night on a country road? Now replace "Greyhound bus driver" with "Uber driver."
How about if the driver in your example, instead of saying "Hey, wanna fuck" says "Hey, wanna give me all your money?" He hasn't made an overt threat, but there certainly is an implied one at 2am.
Is being called out by David Pogue going to shame anyone?
Only if enough of us express our discontent. And maybe email the culprits a few links, such as to this discussion and the original article.
Infinite scrolling: That's just millennials doing this crap, following "Buzz Lightyear - To Infinity and Beyond". I've seen sites that, whenever you try to click on one of the links in the footer, the footer just scrolls away before you can. Retards.
And yet it still breaks the back button, because people DO expect only an overlay that suddenly popped up after the page was rendered to disappear when they click the back button, not the whole damn page.
Mind you, any site that pops up an overlay that blocks what I'm trying to read with something like "give us your email address to receive blah blah blah", I'm quite happy to leave anyway. I'd label such cases as BROKEN_DO_NOT_FIX.
Web and HTML isn't the same beast it was 20+ years ago. It is considered more of a thin-client interface protocol then a document reader.
No, it was considered a document reader, period. How it rendered the documents was entirely up to the client, but only basic content such as text and (some) images were supported - very poorly. It was for reading documents, including plaintext. The servers would serve up documents, in either plaintext or html. HTML was a type of document, not a protocol. The protocol was http: or file: for local files (which never required the "web"), HTML was a document standard, not protocol.
On a side note, the standard was f*cked from the beginning, and even Berniers-Lee now admits he made a mistake. The TLD should have been after the protocol spec and before the rest of the url, - http://org.slashdot.index.html... instead of http://slashdot.org/index.html. There were a lot of other stupidities in the spec as well, soch as calling a link an anchor tag. How stupid and counter-intuitive is this? No, it was copnsidered a document reader.
Get rid of css, problem solved. The web is not supposed to be like print media, where layout is king.