Having a 100% proof vaccine for Ebola is nice, as long as it works for the majority of strains and also lasts for life.
Not so good if it lasts for 1 year and you need another, and only for one specific variety of Ebola, not all.
You have failed to understand the law or it's purpose. The law is not about solving the problem. Instead it's about making it better.
It's the difference between making things worse and making things better.
Google is entirely right to refuse to let France rule the world's internet.
But at the same time, France is entirely right about making Google listen to real people who's lives have been damaged by Google and taking reasonable steps to LIMIT the damage, even if they can never make it perfect.
In a world with cars driven by people, there will always be a car accident. Requiring the driver to stop and render minimal aid after an accident won't end accidents, but it will make the world a better place.
Similarly, Google can't put the information genie back in the bottle, but it can take steps to limit the damage. This is a great law, that help prevents the evils of Rule By Rumor, without punishing people for spreading them.
Every day in the middle east, their are armed drones carrying explosives hovering over someone's yards watching young women.
Those young women are sometimes wearing clothing their particular culture feels is appropriate to go publicly swimming int.
The fact that those drones are owned by the US government and are looking for terrorists from high altitudes does not change the fact that is EXACTLY what they are doing.
Granted there has only been ONE case of a drone armed with a pistol, in the US, flown by a civilian, does not matter.
When someone illegally enters your property, and is carrying an unknown device, it is totally reasonable for the victim of the crime to assume the unknown device is a weapon. Police do it all the time. The same applies to an unaccompanied drone.
then the judge should order him to pay the drone owner the cost of the drone, then fine the drone owner 10x that amount for violating that man's privacy.
The drone person was illegally trespassing on the shooter's property.
In addition the shooter had no way to know with any reasonable degree of certainty that the 'drone' was unarmed. It could have been carrying an explosive device - and not just a gun as was recently seen, but actual c4 explosive.
Finally, even if it was only containing a camera, it was still illegal violation of the shooter's rights and the shooter had the right to destroy the object.
On a story that CNN, Al Jazeera, and the BBC follow? No.
Doing so would be giving their political opponents way too much ammunition.
Again, the main thing gained by the US giving Snowden a pardon is to remove the political chip that Russia has. If you betray your word, you show yourself to be a tyrannical government worse than the Russians.
Right now, any offer of immunity would be valid. Now, if I were him, I would be extra sure to not only pay his taxes, but to also be extremely conservative about what he claimed.
The question is not right vs wrong, but instead who benefits and who suffers.
The United States and the Obama administration are the ones that suffer from having an American claim Asylum in Russia. Right now, Russia benefits from the situation more than anyone else. Snowden himself suffers minor inconveniences relating mainly to lifestyle and the ability to see friends and family.
A Snowden Pardon will not in any way encourage people to do what he did. He did what he did out of patriotism - though some may consider it misguided. Martyrs - whether they are heros or villains - do not concern themselves with such minor punishments.
Such a pardon would benefit everyone except Russia. Russia would lose a major political/moral chip (Look we protect an American from the evil USA - wait a second, where did he go?).
This was not a formal logical argument, it's an internet comment board.. The example of the kid with a rifle was not about equivalence but instead an attempt to explain a concept. I successfully conveyed the intended meaning using a far lesser example.
As for using similar but not identical terms, if this was an attempt to defend a dissertation, then your complaint would be valid. As an internet comment board, where people generally do not know the difference between moral and ethical. For this reason, I feel fine using them interchangeably. The distinction is irrelevant for our purposes.
Furthermore, I myself have a definition that you probably won't agree with - morals are religious, while ethics are not. This belief is not based on philosophy or dictionary definitions, but instead based on how people use the terms. In general I have found that religious people and politicians talk about morals, while governments and organizations that make no claim about religion talk about ethics.
1) Bounty Hunting is expensive, not cheap. If they won't pay 5k to have him arrested, they certainly won't pay the 50k. As for KILLING him - he has not come close to committing a crime worth killing over. In fact, your desire to have him killed for $USD 50 K is in fact more of a crime than anything he is wanted for currently. I would rather you personally go to jail than him.
2) Even ignoring your casual attempt to hire an assassin, Bounty hunters are paid by bail bondsmen that have loaned money to people arrested and charged with a crime. In order to get that loan, they give legal permission for the Bail Bondsmen to hunt them down. It is illegal for a Bounty Hunters to go and hunt down someone that has not legally given them (or rather their bail bondsmen) permission to hunt them down. That is called KIDNAPPING, not bounty hunting. They could do a citizen arrest, but you never get paid for that.
3) This was in Illinois one of the seven stats that have either banned or heavily restricted bounty hunting (Canada has outlawed it).
This is one of those "You only hear about the failures" situation. No one hears about the crazy kid that was given psychiatric counseling and decided NOT to use an ak47 to kill everyone.
There have not been 4 attempts to do this (Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, North Korea), but 400. We stopped well over 90% of them, but you don't hear about them
As for those people you mentioned, many of them were hamstrung by ethical people whose refusal to kill slowed down their crazy lessons.
Instead, it is the rise of a human psychopathic tyrant working with a force of soldiers that obediently kill at his command, with no chance of moral rebellion within his own force.
Because they are quite literally too cheap to pay for five airlines tickets - oneway for the rapper and two return trips for the cops necessary to bring him back.
Unless we are talking murder, high profile case, or something in excess of 1 million dollar stolen, the police simply do not bother to extradite criminals across state lines.
Because absolutely nothing will do more for a rapper's reputation and music sales than to have some idiot police chief stop a performance because he didn't like the lyrics that the rapper had used PREVIOUSLY.
I absolutely guarantee that a robocar will use less gas and have less maintenance. Simply because they will be programmed to drive well, rather than drive for fun. When the light ahead turns red, they cut their gas right away, rather than blindly speeding up for that last 5 seconds to make sure you are first in line.
Similarly I bet repairs will be less even for simple things like oil and belts.
But on the other side, I bet that while some people will share robocars, most two car families will continue to own at least one robocar that they do not rent out. Renting a car out means it isn't always available and if you have two people + a family they will have sufficient need to keep one full time car.
I am sure Einstein described himself as a patent clerk as well.
Let me ask you a question - have you ever pleasured yourself?
Would you like me to describe you as "Noted Masturbator"? It may be true that you have done it, but it is not an appropriate way to refer to you.
Similarly, they may have described themselves that way - probably after being asked a leading question - but that is NOT a good reason to describe them that way in the headline. Headlines should be the most important part of the story, not the most attention gathering. That's the problem with clickbait.
Look, the people 'exploiting' these rare mutations are learning about them.
I absolutely guarantee you that no one will ever cure those medical conditions WITHOUT learning about them. Also, I guarantee you that if they come across a cure, they will make it.
These are not evil companies/doctors heartlessly exploiting sick people. Instead, they are wise corporations and doctors investigating a medical condition, hoping to both make some money AND also cure the condition. If they can only do one, they will - regardless of which one it is.
There were not two 'bored housewives'. They were entrepreneurs. Calling them housewives is insulting to every entrepreneur everywhere - male or female.
Calling them bored housewives is like describing Einstein's work as "Look what this bored patent clerk came up with..."
We may not be able to kill the clickbait in other headlines, but can we PLEASE stop this crap on slashdot thread titles?
If you are attempting to decide if vehicles are safe enough to use, and most people are still riding horses, then YES, THAT"S exactly the comparison you need.
Slashdot Mirror
Having a 100% proof vaccine for Ebola is nice, as long as it works for the majority of strains and also lasts for life. Not so good if it lasts for 1 year and you need another, and only for one specific variety of Ebola, not all.
It's the difference between making things worse and making things better.
Google is entirely right to refuse to let France rule the world's internet.
But at the same time, France is entirely right about making Google listen to real people who's lives have been damaged by Google and taking reasonable steps to LIMIT the damage, even if they can never make it perfect.
In a world with cars driven by people, there will always be a car accident. Requiring the driver to stop and render minimal aid after an accident won't end accidents, but it will make the world a better place.
Similarly, Google can't put the information genie back in the bottle, but it can take steps to limit the damage. This is a great law, that help prevents the evils of Rule By Rumor, without punishing people for spreading them.
Every day in the middle east, their are armed drones carrying explosives hovering over someone's yards watching young women.
Those young women are sometimes wearing clothing their particular culture feels is appropriate to go publicly swimming int.
The fact that those drones are owned by the US government and are looking for terrorists from high altitudes does not change the fact that is EXACTLY what they are doing.
Granted there has only been ONE case of a drone armed with a pistol, in the US, flown by a civilian, does not matter.
When someone illegally enters your property, and is carrying an unknown device, it is totally reasonable for the victim of the crime to assume the unknown device is a weapon. Police do it all the time. The same applies to an unaccompanied drone.
And the existence of those control characters prove we need the character key.
What - you think that something that we DON'T already have a control character for sure get it's own key???
a ".com" key. Which shifts to .org and alts to .net
and I wouldn't mind a button that sends focus tot he url address bar and another to the search bar.
then the judge should order him to pay the drone owner the cost of the drone, then fine the drone owner 10x that amount for violating that man's privacy.
In addition the shooter had no way to know with any reasonable degree of certainty that the 'drone' was unarmed. It could have been carrying an explosive device - and not just a gun as was recently seen, but actual c4 explosive.
Finally, even if it was only containing a camera, it was still illegal violation of the shooter's rights and the shooter had the right to destroy the object.
When you get the device, plug the USB into the device and press a button. It would randomly generate a key and save it to that USB drive.
Now to connect anything to that device you have to plug the USB drive into it, transferring the password key,
Then publicize. Don't dream up a vaporware material and talk about that to the press.
On a story that CNN, Al Jazeera, and the BBC follow? No.
Doing so would be giving their political opponents way too much ammunition.
Again, the main thing gained by the US giving Snowden a pardon is to remove the political chip that Russia has. If you betray your word, you show yourself to be a tyrannical government worse than the Russians.
Right now, any offer of immunity would be valid. Now, if I were him, I would be extra sure to not only pay his taxes, but to also be extremely conservative about what he claimed.
The United States and the Obama administration are the ones that suffer from having an American claim Asylum in Russia. Right now, Russia benefits from the situation more than anyone else. Snowden himself suffers minor inconveniences relating mainly to lifestyle and the ability to see friends and family.
A Snowden Pardon will not in any way encourage people to do what he did. He did what he did out of patriotism - though some may consider it misguided. Martyrs - whether they are heros or villains - do not concern themselves with such minor punishments.
Such a pardon would benefit everyone except Russia. Russia would lose a major political/moral chip (Look we protect an American from the evil USA - wait a second, where did he go?).
I don't consider them autism friendly environment rules, I consider them to be business friendly environment rules.
As for using similar but not identical terms, if this was an attempt to defend a dissertation, then your complaint would be valid. As an internet comment board, where people generally do not know the difference between moral and ethical. For this reason, I feel fine using them interchangeably. The distinction is irrelevant for our purposes.
Furthermore, I myself have a definition that you probably won't agree with - morals are religious, while ethics are not. This belief is not based on philosophy or dictionary definitions, but instead based on how people use the terms. In general I have found that religious people and politicians talk about morals, while governments and organizations that make no claim about religion talk about ethics.
2) Even ignoring your casual attempt to hire an assassin, Bounty hunters are paid by bail bondsmen that have loaned money to people arrested and charged with a crime. In order to get that loan, they give legal permission for the Bail Bondsmen to hunt them down. It is illegal for a Bounty Hunters to go and hunt down someone that has not legally given them (or rather their bail bondsmen) permission to hunt them down. That is called KIDNAPPING, not bounty hunting. They could do a citizen arrest, but you never get paid for that.
3) This was in Illinois one of the seven stats that have either banned or heavily restricted bounty hunting (Canada has outlawed it).
There have not been 4 attempts to do this (Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, North Korea), but 400. We stopped well over 90% of them, but you don't hear about them
As for those people you mentioned, many of them were hamstrung by ethical people whose refusal to kill slowed down their crazy lessons.
Instead, it is the rise of a human psychopathic tyrant working with a force of soldiers that obediently kill at his command, with no chance of moral rebellion within his own force.
Unless we are talking murder, high profile case, or something in excess of 1 million dollar stolen, the police simply do not bother to extradite criminals across state lines.
Because absolutely nothing will do more for a rapper's reputation and music sales than to have some idiot police chief stop a performance because he didn't like the lyrics that the rapper had used PREVIOUSLY.
Similarly I bet repairs will be less even for simple things like oil and belts.
But on the other side, I bet that while some people will share robocars, most two car families will continue to own at least one robocar that they do not rent out. Renting a car out means it isn't always available and if you have two people + a family they will have sufficient need to keep one full time car.
As in they can say, no, we won't give you a raise, Jennifer does the same job for less and she's been here longer. Maybe next year.
Let me ask you a question - have you ever pleasured yourself?
Would you like me to describe you as "Noted Masturbator"? It may be true that you have done it, but it is not an appropriate way to refer to you.
Similarly, they may have described themselves that way - probably after being asked a leading question - but that is NOT a good reason to describe them that way in the headline. Headlines should be the most important part of the story, not the most attention gathering. That's the problem with clickbait.
I absolutely guarantee you that no one will ever cure those medical conditions WITHOUT learning about them. Also, I guarantee you that if they come across a cure, they will make it.
These are not evil companies/doctors heartlessly exploiting sick people. Instead, they are wise corporations and doctors investigating a medical condition, hoping to both make some money AND also cure the condition. If they can only do one, they will - regardless of which one it is.
Calling them bored housewives is like describing Einstein's work as "Look what this bored patent clerk came up with..."
We may not be able to kill the clickbait in other headlines, but can we PLEASE stop this crap on slashdot thread titles?
If you are attempting to decide if vehicles are safe enough to use, and most people are still riding horses, then YES, THAT"S exactly the comparison you need.
In this case, we obviously need to know the error rate for normal surgeries.
It might be that the 'high' rate for robot surgery is in fact low when compared to non-robot surgery.