The term "Feminist" is so subjective that it really only serves as a floor: a film where the woman is nothing but a love interest or a damsel in distress is not feminist because the woman is acted upon by the events in the film rather than driving them.
This is a movie where the superhero is a woman, therefore it is feminist unless she is texting Nick Fury all the time asking for permission.
You have posted an awful lot in this thread about a film you haven't seen and complained that the film was divisively marketed. Is this anger and division coming from anyone but the men complaining that men are not fairly represented?
In James Bond films, the woman are at best help-mates, and at worst murderous vixens, yet Feminist criticism is (for the most part) correctly derided and ignored as doctrinaire and humorless. Now there are legions of men who turn into scolds and vandals worse than bellbottom-wearing, hairy-armpit feminists when a movie has some of the roles reversed. It's just a movie, don't try to shoehorn your identity politics into it.
As I recall, the police already found that the dead pedestrian was at fault. I remember because I disagreed with that finding. But I also disagree with letting the corporation off the hook while intimating that the "backup driver" might be prosecuted.
Uber's self-driving functionality worked well enough that few people would be able to remain vigilant behind the wheel for an extended period of time. It worked well enough that the driver felt comfortable entrusting her own life to the system. I'm sure prosecutors can prove all the elements of some charge beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't think this woman should be criminally sanctioned for what is the literally-unprecedented failure of an autonomous vehicle resulting in human death.
I would make an exception if the crime was something non-stigmatizing like using a cell phone while driving, because a misdemeanor conviction should make it much easier for the victim's family to win a lawsuit against Uber without ruining the driver's life.
My GOT references was a lighthearted reference to the brutality of my modest proposal. More brutal than you comprehended since I was suggesting something like a million lashes over the guy's lifetime.
But leaving aside your poor reading comprehension and AC sanctimony, I'm not sure what your point was: Your observation that crimes are committed despite threatened punishment does not prove that punishment does not deter crime. And your parade of horribles doesn't address whether flogging would be more humane than 80 years in prison (which I think we agree would be a waste of a life).
If you feel that the Constitution is correct in preventing the government from imposing cruel and unusual punishments then we agree on that too. But while I'm glad to live in a country without a Lord High Executioner, I'm forced to lament that because of this, the punishment cannot always fit the crime.
PS: Please post which state has refused to outlaw burning at the stake, and note that the Constitution is more than a slip of paper (more than several, even!). TIA.
Though it is unconstitutional, this is the sort of crime I think should be punishable by flogging. Say, one lash per human hour wasted--to be administered at medically-safe intervals over his lifetime at a lot less expense than imprisoning him.
2400 * 100 people inconvenienced for four hours a piece per incident (WAG) is almost a million man-hours wasted because of this guy. A year has just 8760 hours, so he took up 109 man-years of human activity.
This strikes me as both fair punishment and strong deterrence, but I won't be debating the point because I'm trying to finish A Clash of Kings this weekend.
In California you are entitled to a (misdemeanor, I think) trial within 30 days if you are in custody. Almost nobody does so.
Defendants stipulate to delays for procedural or practical purposes: maybe to have a hearing to toss out evidence, or maybe their lawyer says he won't go to trial until he is paid in full, or whatever.
This doesn't excuse the systemic failures, but it's the difference between a feature and a bug.
I appreciate the effort, and the citations, but the Fox News claim you are attempting to substantiate is:
4. "Far more children died last year drowning in their bathtubs than were killed accidentally by guns."
Tucker Carlson, Aug. 9, 2014
The CDC page you linked to expressly states: "Among children ages 1 to 4, most drownings occur in home swimming pools." No number for bathtubs is even hinted at
Though to be fair to both AC and Mr. Carlson, it should be pointed out that many of the children killed are deliberately targeted by a family member or classmate, so it remains possible that the number of children "killed accidentally" is quite small indeed.
Your rhetorical questions are suspiciously specific. Fox News tells convenient falsehoods to comfort and enrage our senior citizens, poorly educated, and President. Here are some examples I found in 5 seconds of using the cyber.
I saw an opportunity to be technically correct, and found out things had changed since I last looked at them. There was once a sort of
"fair use" exception for "philosophical experimentation," but that has since been narrowed to oblivion by the same Federal Circuit.
https://www.patentdocs.org/201...
I can't help but think that China is creating a guaranteed market for applied AI with their surveillance state the same way the U.S. created a guaranteed market for all sorts of supporting technologies during the cold war.
The result of this will be lots of innovation not just in the AI itself, but in the hardware, and theoretical space as well.
Plus China's AI will be working against people who don't want their Social Credit (or whatever) diminished. In the U.S., AI will be working to figure out when you are most receptive to an ad for Tide Pods. So their incentives are greater and their problems will be more demanding.
I'm not sure how liberal Western democracies (or ordinary Chinese citizens) can win.
Once all of the suck-- specu-- investors buy in, the BTC price will stabilize at a price premium that reflects the utility of being able to anonymously purchase crokodil.
Many, many people have considered this, which is why the price has dropped.
IIRC Martha Stewart lied to the FBI about selling stock in her own company.
Regardless, insider trading is for securities, not real estate. I can't remember the specifics of how an insider is defined, but I think an insider trading rap would be a stretch because the information they had was not confidential to the real estate owner.
I sort-of agree with the experts. It looks like a standard Banksy picture, which is cute, but nothing special. The shredding of it is part of the message, and shows that the artist actually put some thought into it.
The thought is contempt for the person who spent so much on a run-of-the-mill painting--but I sort-of agree with that too.
Yeah. I get that people don't like it when lawyers get rich off of other people's misfortune, but headlines like this seem like PR from some organization that wants to get rid of consumer class actions.
Class actions are an economical way of vindicating the rights of large classes of people—and that is why big businesses don't like them. They want the latitude of ripping people off just below the pain threshold, whether they are selling goods or buying labor.
Though arbitration is its own issue, the Federal Arbitration Act should be amended to be more consumer and employee friendly, and to prevent companies from creating click-wrap licenses that strip you of your right to a class action.
I know you're just jaq-ing off, but I'll do no research and give you two cents I found in my armchair.
Military intelligence service is now so free for time it has ability to get into the pastime of sport?
Who would use military intelligence service for international spy networks for sport?
I think the security of the Russian government depends on a public that feels that they are members of a great nation that is unfairly targeted by the Western powers. The exposure of Russia's athlete doping is a wound against national prestige, so discrediting the responsible party shows that 1) Russia is unfairly targeted by Western powers and 2) Russia really is a great nation at sports (the Olympics, World Cup, etc.)
When a nations spies it uses its best spies with the best change of never getting detected.
Why task a military intelligence service for a role they are not experts in?
Nations can't always use their best spies--half will always be below average, and crap like this is a low-stakes opportunity to make them better. Trump is in the Whitehouse, Putin is in Ukraine, and some poisoned are people in England: getting caught hacking a sports agency will have little real consequence, but could have paid reasonable dividends domestically.
The West is fixated on the GRU for some reason. Its not the intelligence service that would be used internationally for "sport".
They have NATO tanks to count and advanced drones to watch for.
I think public budgets and secret satellites keep Russia appraised of NATO tanks. My impression is that spycraft is a use-it or lose-it skill. Russia is using it.
The wikipedia link you provided says the exact opposite.
The final decision . . . confirmed that there existed copyright at common law that turned "upon Principles before and independent" of the Statute of Anne, something justified because it was right "that an Author should reap the pecuniary Profits of his own Ingenuity and Labour"
It was the House of Lords that said "that copyright was not perpetual, and that the term permitted by the Statute of Anne was the maximum length of legal protection."
When I first read about Qualcomm's ambitions in this area, the article said that they were aiming for Chinese data centers who would be developing their own OS (and therefore did not need x86 compatibility).
I don't see the historic acceptability of marrying off young women as being exculpatory. For the vast majority of human history, the strong took what they wanted. That worked great for the strong, so it persisted, but I wouldn't claim that robbery should be tolerated because it was once the modus vivendi.
The guy is alleged to have solicited a 16-year old for sex. She wasn't legally old enough to consent to the sex or the contracted exchange. So no magic number is required.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the infamous "What about New Zealand!" I would have lost a drinking game.
The term "Feminist" is so subjective that it really only serves as a floor: a film where the woman is nothing but a love interest or a damsel in distress is not feminist because the woman is acted upon by the events in the film rather than driving them.
This is a movie where the superhero is a woman, therefore it is feminist unless she is texting Nick Fury all the time asking for permission.
You have posted an awful lot in this thread about a film you haven't seen and complained that the film was divisively marketed. Is this anger and division coming from anyone but the men complaining that men are not fairly represented?
In James Bond films, the woman are at best help-mates, and at worst murderous vixens, yet Feminist criticism is (for the most part) correctly derided and ignored as doctrinaire and humorless. Now there are legions of men who turn into scolds and vandals worse than bellbottom-wearing, hairy-armpit feminists when a movie has some of the roles reversed. It's just a movie, don't try to shoehorn your identity politics into it.
. . . when Republicans try to execute one.
As I recall, the police already found that the dead pedestrian was at fault. I remember because I disagreed with that finding. But I also disagree with letting the corporation off the hook while intimating that the "backup driver" might be prosecuted.
Uber's self-driving functionality worked well enough that few people would be able to remain vigilant behind the wheel for an extended period of time. It worked well enough that the driver felt comfortable entrusting her own life to the system. I'm sure prosecutors can prove all the elements of some charge beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't think this woman should be criminally sanctioned for what is the literally-unprecedented failure of an autonomous vehicle resulting in human death.
I would make an exception if the crime was something non-stigmatizing like using a cell phone while driving, because a misdemeanor conviction should make it much easier for the victim's family to win a lawsuit against Uber without ruining the driver's life.
My GOT references was a lighthearted reference to the brutality of my modest proposal. More brutal than you comprehended since I was suggesting something like a million lashes over the guy's lifetime.
But leaving aside your poor reading comprehension and AC sanctimony, I'm not sure what your point was: Your observation that crimes are committed despite threatened punishment does not prove that punishment does not deter crime. And your parade of horribles doesn't address whether flogging would be more humane than 80 years in prison (which I think we agree would be a waste of a life).
If you feel that the Constitution is correct in preventing the government from imposing cruel and unusual punishments then we agree on that too. But while I'm glad to live in a country without a Lord High Executioner, I'm forced to lament that because of this, the punishment cannot always fit the crime.
PS: Please post which state has refused to outlaw burning at the stake, and note that the Constitution is more than a slip of paper (more than several, even!). TIA.
Though it is unconstitutional, this is the sort of crime I think should be punishable by flogging. Say, one lash per human hour wasted--to be administered at medically-safe intervals over his lifetime at a lot less expense than imprisoning him.
2400 * 100 people inconvenienced for four hours a piece per incident (WAG) is almost a million man-hours wasted because of this guy. A year has just 8760 hours, so he took up 109 man-years of human activity.
This strikes me as both fair punishment and strong deterrence, but I won't be debating the point because I'm trying to finish A Clash of Kings this weekend.
In California you are entitled to a (misdemeanor, I think) trial within 30 days if you are in custody. Almost nobody does so.
Defendants stipulate to delays for procedural or practical purposes: maybe to have a hearing to toss out evidence, or maybe their lawyer says he won't go to trial until he is paid in full, or whatever.
This doesn't excuse the systemic failures, but it's the difference between a feature and a bug.
The CDC page you linked to expressly states: "Among children ages 1 to 4, most drownings occur in home swimming pools." No number for bathtubs is even hinted at
Though to be fair to both AC and Mr. Carlson, it should be pointed out that many of the children killed are deliberately targeted by a family member or classmate, so it remains possible that the number of children "killed accidentally" is quite small indeed.
Your rhetorical questions are suspiciously specific. Fox News tells convenient falsehoods to comfort and enrage our senior citizens, poorly educated, and President. Here are some examples I found in 5 seconds of using the cyber.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/feb/26/fact-checks-behind-daily-shows-50-fox-news-lies.
This was a couple years ago, so post WMD BS, but pre "Caravan of Death" BS.
Thou shalt not make a bot that Tweeteth in the likeness of a human mind, or any other part that cause a human to Tweeteth.
I saw an opportunity to be technically correct, and found out things had changed since I last looked at them. There was once a sort of "fair use" exception for "philosophical experimentation," but that has since been narrowed to oblivion by the same Federal Circuit. https://www.patentdocs.org/201...
If your sysadmin has flipped, it doesn't matter if RMS wrote all the software himself.
Would you like to play a game of Global Pandemic?
I can't help but think that China is creating a guaranteed market for applied AI with their surveillance state the same way the U.S. created a guaranteed market for all sorts of supporting technologies during the cold war.
The result of this will be lots of innovation not just in the AI itself, but in the hardware, and theoretical space as well.
Plus China's AI will be working against people who don't want their Social Credit (or whatever) diminished. In the U.S., AI will be working to figure out when you are most receptive to an ad for Tide Pods. So their incentives are greater and their problems will be more demanding.
I'm not sure how liberal Western democracies (or ordinary Chinese citizens) can win.
Once all of the suck-- specu-- investors buy in, the BTC price will stabilize at a price premium that reflects the utility of being able to anonymously purchase crokodil.
Many, many people have considered this, which is why the price has dropped.
Regardless, insider trading is for securities, not real estate. I can't remember the specifics of how an insider is defined, but I think an insider trading rap would be a stretch because the information they had was not confidential to the real estate owner.
A gasoline tanker with a cab full of renaissance paintings and panda cubs.
I sort-of agree with the experts. It looks like a standard Banksy picture, which is cute, but nothing special. The shredding of it is part of the message, and shows that the artist actually put some thought into it.
The thought is contempt for the person who spent so much on a run-of-the-mill painting--but I sort-of agree with that too.
Class actions are an economical way of vindicating the rights of large classes of people—and that is why big businesses don't like them. They want the latitude of ripping people off just below the pain threshold, whether they are selling goods or buying labor.
Though arbitration is its own issue, the Federal Arbitration Act should be amended to be more consumer and employee friendly, and to prevent companies from creating click-wrap licenses that strip you of your right to a class action.
Military intelligence service is now so free for time it has ability to get into the pastime of sport? Who would use military intelligence service for international spy networks for sport?
I think the security of the Russian government depends on a public that feels that they are members of a great nation that is unfairly targeted by the Western powers. The exposure of Russia's athlete doping is a wound against national prestige, so discrediting the responsible party shows that 1) Russia is unfairly targeted by Western powers and 2) Russia really is a great nation at sports (the Olympics, World Cup, etc.)
When a nations spies it uses its best spies with the best change of never getting detected.
Why task a military intelligence service for a role they are not experts in?
Nations can't always use their best spies--half will always be below average, and crap like this is a low-stakes opportunity to make them better. Trump is in the Whitehouse, Putin is in Ukraine, and some poisoned are people in England: getting caught hacking a sports agency will have little real consequence, but could have paid reasonable dividends domestically.
The West is fixated on the GRU for some reason. Its not the intelligence service that would be used internationally for "sport". They have NATO tanks to count and advanced drones to watch for.
I think public budgets and secret satellites keep Russia appraised of NATO tanks. My impression is that spycraft is a use-it or lose-it skill. Russia is using it.
I don't want to see Yeti Toad.
Indeed it was! I thought this was an instance of the legislature and the courts competing over who got to create and define rights.
The final decision . . . confirmed that there existed copyright at common law that turned "upon Principles before and independent" of the Statute of Anne, something justified because it was right "that an Author should reap the pecuniary Profits of his own Ingenuity and Labour"
It was the House of Lords that said "that copyright was not perpetual, and that the term permitted by the Statute of Anne was the maximum length of legal protection."
When I first read about Qualcomm's ambitions in this area, the article said that they were aiming for Chinese data centers who would be developing their own OS (and therefore did not need x86 compatibility).
I don't see the historic acceptability of marrying off young women as being exculpatory. For the vast majority of human history, the strong took what they wanted. That worked great for the strong, so it persisted, but I wouldn't claim that robbery should be tolerated because it was once the modus vivendi.
The guy is alleged to have solicited a 16-year old for sex. She wasn't legally old enough to consent to the sex or the contracted exchange. So no magic number is required.
You lack imagination. Maybe he shorted them.