There are no checks and balances on the will of the people in any democratic system. Representatives who don't do the will of the people can be recalled. Constitutions can be amended. Uncooperative officials can be fired.
There's absolutely no way to stop it, unless the minority is willing to use force against the majority, in which case it's not a democracy anymore.
Just because your definition of good and bad (what will be needed for survival in the future) can't be implemented rationally today doesn't mean every definition can't be implemented rationally today.
Now maybe you're talking about publicly owned debt, but there was definitely a lot (too much) of debt relief.
even though Greece imposed austerity on the level that has not been seen in a peacetime in Europe
That's hilarious. I guess it depends on your definition of austerity. Hint: things like "you have to eliminate that 13th and 14th month paycheck thing" are not austerity.
From what I recall, part of the warning from the EU to Scotland was that they don't want to encourage independence movements since several member countries are facing their own movements.
Not sure how those countries would feel about immediately welcoming with open arms a newly independent country.
it's the only fair compensation for having been ruled by Britain
Nah that's like the "reparations" garbage. You can't hold people responsible for the sins of their ancestors. Normal people who haven't been brainwashed into being guilty for simply being alive will reject that nonsense.
Water, electricity, roads? Come on man I don't want to live in a 3rd world country where that stuff stops existing or functioning properly when you get out of the major cities.
Installing fiber lines has gotten a lot cheaper in the last decade and will continue to do so as more companies are doing last-mile fiber installs. It's already cheap enough that I think it should be done on an as-efficiently-doable basis... like if a road is being torn up, or power lines are being replaced, or whatever, there should be conduit and fiber going in as well. Even in rural areas.
You could.. except in places where towns build their own networks there is generally a push by telecoms/cable to ban it or make it more difficult to do. It happened here in NC after one town built their own fiber network for residential use.
Not to mention, if the taxpayers pay for it and then lease it to a company that charges them their full regular price (honestly can't imagine otherwise), they're getting double billed.
In this case, as noted in the summary, Twitter et al already have moderators but they're selectively applied.
In the Walmart analogy it would be like if they were allowing Black Lives Matters to have protests but kicking out All Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter or whatever.
The companies are already doing it, that was in the summary. Google Twitter's "trust and safety council" for instance.
The result of this lawsuit would ideally be that these companies start providing more open platforms again. Twitter provides tools to let users block other users.. that should be enough. Why do they have a team that goes around censoring certain viewpoints at all? And once they start doing that, it is fair to ask why they're going after people who are mean to feminists (for instance) rather than terrorist recruiters.
But as noted in the summary "each company does have moderators that review content."
Once upon a time, that meant that they were giving up rights to be considered a common carrier with no liability for what is carried.
Now people want it both ways... Twitter has a "Trust and Safety Council" that goes around banning people who express certain viewpoints to provide "safe spaces" for the groups du jour they want to protect.
So why don't they have a better anti-terrorism group? It's a fair question once they choose stick their toe in the water for some things but not others.
It's still an error. You're forgetting that our system is also built around the possibility of making false convictions. Errors go both ways in our system, we've known that since the beginning. You remind me of people who think our system of justice requires "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" -- that's not how it works.
so it's sensible to balance things toward the people and not the state
I'm talking about victims and potential victims, not the state.
It's always possible to take somebodys life you can never give it back.
You're still only looking at half the equation, and even that you're oversimplifying. You can't give back time, humiliation, the destruction of careers, or castrated testicles. So? People aren't perfect and neither are collections of people, i.e. the state. You can't let the possibility of death or anything else paralyze you from investigating and implementing smarter solutions.
You're worried about errors and malicious actions done by the state, but you're only considering their actions towards suspects. The state has responsibility towards victims and future victims as well. It's clearly an error when the state releases a rapist who goes on to rape again and victimize another person, right?
I'm not sure it's been tried as extensively as with sexual offenses, but studies do show reduction in aggression when testosterone is eliminated.
What are you requesting a citation for? That rape is about sex? The most convincing argument I've read is in a book called "The Dark Side of Man." I'm not going to type it all up but basically the author looks at rape victim statistics among animals and humans and notes that the vast majority of rape is perpetrated against young women of childbearing age. If it's just about power and/or opportunity, there would be more rapes of young children and the elderly. While they happen, they are relatively rare and we see them as more deviant.
I looked up the name, he was exonerated for a series of rapes that he didn't commit. But he did rape his own girlfriend before that and served 3 years.
That said, yes there are some innocent people who would be hurt by this. That sucks. Making it a punishment for a 2nd conviction would reduce that a lot. It could also be an option for 1st offenses that are incontrovertible.
Second, nothing is foolproof except death, but I've read that castration results in much lower recidivism rates than other treatments. It's only really been done (in modern times) to a small population of very dangerous sexual offenders, and it's had a lot of success. I think applying it more broadly to violent crime would have a huge deterrent effect, as well as reducing recidivism.
Evidence? What kind of evidence? A person's support for the death penalty is simply part of their beliefs, not a matter of fact that is swayed by evidence.
Or maybe people will just lower their standards. Why do we need special prison designs to deal with execution? We don't. That's utterly retarded.
We can always fall back to the old trick of putting a bullet in someone's head.. I seriously doubt gun manufacturers are going to ban sales to governments that enforce the death penalty.
Slashdot Mirror
other leavers like Daniel Hannan admitted they lied that they'd be able to bring immigration down now
Can you explain why not? It seems like it wouldn't be that hard for an island nation to control immigration.
There are no checks and balances on the will of the people in any democratic system. Representatives who don't do the will of the people can be recalled. Constitutions can be amended. Uncooperative officials can be fired.
There's absolutely no way to stop it, unless the minority is willing to use force against the majority, in which case it's not a democracy anymore.
The investor class abuses the worker class.
What nonsense. You shouldn't use a term like "abuse" so loosely.
I guess every time I post on slashdot during work hours I'm "abusing" the investor class as well.
Just because your definition of good and bad (what will be needed for survival in the future) can't be implemented rationally today doesn't mean every definition can't be implemented rationally today.
Scientifically this can be shown to lead to poor outcomes, and thus Eugenics is itself flawed.
Even if it's flawed, it could be the best option.
exclude negative individual and population outcomes
That sounds simple enough...
There you go, we just need household robots that can be remotely controlled by plumbers. Kind of like those surgery robots.
Umm http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...
Now maybe you're talking about publicly owned debt, but there was definitely a lot (too much) of debt relief.
even though Greece imposed austerity on the level that has not been seen in a peacetime in Europe
That's hilarious. I guess it depends on your definition of austerity. Hint: things like "you have to eliminate that 13th and 14th month paycheck thing" are not austerity.
From what I recall, part of the warning from the EU to Scotland was that they don't want to encourage independence movements since several member countries are facing their own movements.
Not sure how those countries would feel about immediately welcoming with open arms a newly independent country.
it's the only fair compensation for having been ruled by Britain
Nah that's like the "reparations" garbage. You can't hold people responsible for the sins of their ancestors. Normal people who haven't been brainwashed into being guilty for simply being alive will reject that nonsense.
Water, electricity, roads? Come on man I don't want to live in a 3rd world country where that stuff stops existing or functioning properly when you get out of the major cities.
Installing fiber lines has gotten a lot cheaper in the last decade and will continue to do so as more companies are doing last-mile fiber installs. It's already cheap enough that I think it should be done on an as-efficiently-doable basis... like if a road is being torn up, or power lines are being replaced, or whatever, there should be conduit and fiber going in as well. Even in rural areas.
You could.. except in places where towns build their own networks there is generally a push by telecoms/cable to ban it or make it more difficult to do. It happened here in NC after one town built their own fiber network for residential use.
Not to mention, if the taxpayers pay for it and then lease it to a company that charges them their full regular price (honestly can't imagine otherwise), they're getting double billed.
In this case, as noted in the summary, Twitter et al already have moderators but they're selectively applied.
In the Walmart analogy it would be like if they were allowing Black Lives Matters to have protests but kicking out All Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter or whatever.
Then it becomes a case of discrimination.
The companies are already doing it, that was in the summary. Google Twitter's "trust and safety council" for instance.
The result of this lawsuit would ideally be that these companies start providing more open platforms again. Twitter provides tools to let users block other users.. that should be enough. Why do they have a team that goes around censoring certain viewpoints at all? And once they start doing that, it is fair to ask why they're going after people who are mean to feminists (for instance) rather than terrorist recruiters.
But as noted in the summary "each company does have moderators that review content."
Once upon a time, that meant that they were giving up rights to be considered a common carrier with no liability for what is carried.
Now people want it both ways... Twitter has a "Trust and Safety Council" that goes around banning people who express certain viewpoints to provide "safe spaces" for the groups du jour they want to protect.
So why don't they have a better anti-terrorism group? It's a fair question once they choose stick their toe in the water for some things but not others.
That's the idea behind supergenpass. My only problem with it is sites that force you to change your password... what's your approach to handling that?
Are you stupid? Did you not see the link?
Bye troll
Umm, avoiding the question? It wasn't clear what you were referring to. Good job sounding like a complete douche.
http://www.scientificamerican....
It's still an error. You're forgetting that our system is also built around the possibility of making false convictions. Errors go both ways in our system, we've known that since the beginning. You remind me of people who think our system of justice requires "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" -- that's not how it works.
so it's sensible to balance things toward the people and not the state
I'm talking about victims and potential victims, not the state.
It's always possible to take somebodys life you can never give it back.
You're still only looking at half the equation, and even that you're oversimplifying. You can't give back time, humiliation, the destruction of careers, or castrated testicles. So? People aren't perfect and neither are collections of people, i.e. the state. You can't let the possibility of death or anything else paralyze you from investigating and implementing smarter solutions.
You're worried about errors and malicious actions done by the state, but you're only considering their actions towards suspects. The state has responsibility towards victims and future victims as well. It's clearly an error when the state releases a rapist who goes on to rape again and victimize another person, right?
I'm not sure it's been tried as extensively as with sexual offenses, but studies do show reduction in aggression when testosterone is eliminated.
What are you requesting a citation for? That rape is about sex? The most convincing argument I've read is in a book called "The Dark Side of Man." I'm not going to type it all up but basically the author looks at rape victim statistics among animals and humans and notes that the vast majority of rape is perpetrated against young women of childbearing age. If it's just about power and/or opportunity, there would be more rapes of young children and the elderly. While they happen, they are relatively rare and we see them as more deviant.
I looked up the name, he was exonerated for a series of rapes that he didn't commit. But he did rape his own girlfriend before that and served 3 years.
That said, yes there are some innocent people who would be hurt by this. That sucks. Making it a punishment for a 2nd conviction would reduce that a lot. It could also be an option for 1st offenses that are incontrovertible.
First of all, no, rape is about sex.
Second, nothing is foolproof except death, but I've read that castration results in much lower recidivism rates than other treatments. It's only really been done (in modern times) to a small population of very dangerous sexual offenders, and it's had a lot of success. I think applying it more broadly to violent crime would have a huge deterrent effect, as well as reducing recidivism.
Nope. Any other questions?
Evidence? What kind of evidence? A person's support for the death penalty is simply part of their beliefs, not a matter of fact that is swayed by evidence.
Or maybe people will just lower their standards. Why do we need special prison designs to deal with execution? We don't. That's utterly retarded.
We can always fall back to the old trick of putting a bullet in someone's head.. I seriously doubt gun manufacturers are going to ban sales to governments that enforce the death penalty.