One of the problems here is that the doctors don't always bother to conduct the testing necessary when doing the prescribing.
This rises a question: is it about time we get rid of general doctors? Inferring a cause from symptoms is a form of bayesian interference, and computers are better than humans at it. And they never skip tests because it's the last patient of Friday.
Your house and your mind are different things. That's why there are different laws.
Your house and your encrypted byte stream key are different things too, but that didn't stop you from using the latter as an analogy for a former. Furthermore, my argument is not based on them but you: you are forced to help the prosecution to make his case against you, in other words, to incriminate yourself.
Furthermore, the law under the consideration here is the Constitution. Even if there were laws attempting to force you to aid in your own prosecution, the Fifth Amendment would trump them. As such, the only question is whether decrypting your hard drive could be incriminating - which, of course, it could, since else the prosecutor wouldn't be asking for it.
Here in the United States, only 11% of the population approves of the job that Congress is doing. That's a lot of unhappy people.
Not really, it's much higher than expected. America is diverse enough that every single decision the Congress makes is going to piss of someone, and a good compromise leaves everyone mad.
Imagine you stand in front of a house door, the police arrives with a warrant and ask you to open the door. You say "It's not my house, break the door if you like, but I don't have keys to let you in". There is no doubt that the police has the right to get in. But opening the door would prove that you have access to the house, so if the police doesn't know that, opening the door would be self incriminating. Not so if you are _inside_. The police would know that you have access, so opening the door is not self incriminating. Giving the police access to the evidence inside doesn't count as "self incriminating" and isn't protected by the fifth amendment.
Imagine that it's not your house but your mind. Are you required to let the police in - that is, testify against yourself? If so, the Fifth Amendment is meaningless. And if yes, how is that any different from the house example? After all, in both cases you are being ordered to actively assist in gathering evidence against you. And that is true in the case of being told to decrypt your hard drive, too.
Either "Terrorism" (makes you think who really won, doesn't it?)
Osama did. Not only did he deliver what appears to have been a mortal blow, both morally and economically, but got away with it too, living in comfort and watching his enemies finish his work for him, and finally receiving a quick and easy death just before the onset of old age, making him a martyr in the eyes of his followers.
But it does get us one step closer. It's one more prerequisite that no longer stands in the way. It's one less hurdle for anyone who wants to abuse a nationwise genetic database - such as the insurance companies, eugenists and the police.
Today it's swaps, tomorrow it's full genetic sequencing to get a better match and the day after that it's your genetic tendency towards addiction being used as a reasonable cause to search your house whenever the police wish. Which is perfectly rational because, after all, those tendencies are real and only a bleeding heart liberal would be soft on potential criminals. And the day after that they'll skip that step and just send you to a jail pre-emptively; it's unfortunate, but you will become a druggie anyway, it is your destiny.
But hey, maybe if you agree to pay for your own monitoring outside the prison... you understand, we can't burden genetically decent taxpayers with being soft on potential potheads.
From an academic standpoint, food production outweighs entertainment.
Producing food people refuse to eat doesn't really outweight anything. Bonus points for doing said pointless production in an ethically questionable and economically and enviromentally destructive manner, and even those are awarded only by supervillains.
Japan and several other countries with long culture of whaling view this as insanity and see whales as the same as any other nautical resource.
And by Japan, you actually mean a bunch of sleazy businessmen. Because it doesn't seem like ordinary Japanese have much of an interest in using this resource, seeing how that was the whole premise of this story.
It's the same thing everywhere. Austerity is fashionable, so everyone is trying to compete by cutting costs, which means they're cutting quality, which means there's less and less reason why anyone would want their shit for any price.
It's hit newspaper industry especially hard, since they're directly competing with the Internet, but the entire world economy seems to be in a similar death spiral of austerity over investment.
After all, we here at Slashdot have solved the world's problems many times over. In fact, we do it each week.
You must be talking about some other Slashdot. In this one, everyone proposes their pet ideology as an instant solution to every problem, then start calling each other names when they don't instantly capitulate. So it's pretty much the same as political debate everywhere else.
Even the homeless and destitute in the US enjoy a standard of living far above that of the average human even a century ago.
The average human a century ago had a home, which might not have been fancy but still better than nothing, therefore your claim is absurd.
We simply don't care about social-issue-X as much as we value cheap tasty calories and cheap immersive entertainment.
This has always been the case. Ever heard of the term "bread and circuses"? It has nothing to do with having "already won" and everything to do with short-sighted laziness.
Does anyone know why schizophrenia svoices always seem to try and cause harm? Why don't the voices tell you to clean your house, volunteer for something, build a house, do something good?
Selection bias. If you have a voice in your head you're good friends with and which is helping you to become a happy, succesful person, why would you go see a doctor?
Yes, torts like fraud occur all the time. You haven't shown that you need to pay taxes to a government to fight these torts. Their are free market options like private arbitration firms, private security firms, bounty hunters, selling claims to those are willing to prosecute (champerty), and other solutions that haven't been allowed to be discovered yet.
Prosecute? You mean appeal to the government to decide which of us it'll side with?
But yes, bounty hunters - also called mercenaries - would work to enforce your will. And they work just as well enforcing Joe Warlord's will, so you might have bigger problems than fraud.
I am bothered by my not having enough video games; can I take your money to combat that problem?
Ladies and gentlemen, libertarianism in a nutshell: not having food is just like not having video games.
But to answer your question: without a government, whether you can take my stuff or I can take yours depends entirely on which one of us has a bigger club.
If this necessary evil were fairly and evenly enforced, everyone making over $x would pay the same percentage of tax on income, with no loopholes.
Close, but in your scenario it's possible to end up with less in hand as your income increases. How the real system works is that you only pay taxes on the portion of your income that exceeds $x (and higher percentages on portions exceeding other tresholds), solving this problem.
Most people will do what it takes to get what they want in life...period.[...]Sure, I'd say most people prefer to do everything honest and aboveboard (I'm an optimist),
I'm not sure if the problem is due to arrogance or if the Chinese economy stumbling a lot more they're letting on.
As long as people are willing to do business with China, why wouldn't the Chinese try to increase their profits by cutting corners? It's just capitalism working as intended.
Every species exhibits conflict and turmoil among its own members, whereas violence between species is almost solely one of predator/prey relationship. If you don't eat them, and they don't eat you, there is almost never interspecies conflict. The greater the physical differences, the less likely any conflict.
Yes. Now ask yourself why. And the answer, of course, is obvious: members of the same species compete on resources (mates, food, nests), and differences between species make them less likely to compete for the same resources.
But it's different for technological civilizations. No matter their form, they'll want energy and matter to build tehnological items. We are going to either merge or compete.
In fact any two species who can agree on two simple rules, (1) The other is not Food, (2) the other's planet is not your planet,
It's the second point that's a potential problem. Planets are a source of raw materials, and that makes them valuable.
would almost inevitably lead to peaceful co-existence and cooperation, and, most likely, a good deal of fascination with each other.
That's one way of describing the material that will inevitably flood the Internet, I guess.
I've found BYOD is actually a big PITA for large organisations because the devices people are bringing are almost universally Android or iOS, and in both cases the OS and apps have terrible support for HTTP proxies; and many large organisations use proxies to control web access from within their networks.
So maybe you shouldn't try to control web access from your network if you allow it at all, but rather deal with people browsing Slashdot or porn sites all day long when and if it becomes a problem?
Slashdot Mirror
This rises a question: is it about time we get rid of general doctors? Inferring a cause from symptoms is a form of bayesian interference, and computers are better than humans at it. And they never skip tests because it's the last patient of Friday.
Your house and your encrypted byte stream key are different things too, but that didn't stop you from using the latter as an analogy for a former. Furthermore, my argument is not based on them but you: you are forced to help the prosecution to make his case against you, in other words, to incriminate yourself.
Furthermore, the law under the consideration here is the Constitution. Even if there were laws attempting to force you to aid in your own prosecution, the Fifth Amendment would trump them. As such, the only question is whether decrypting your hard drive could be incriminating - which, of course, it could, since else the prosecutor wouldn't be asking for it.
Not really, it's much higher than expected. America is diverse enough that every single decision the Congress makes is going to piss of someone, and a good compromise leaves everyone mad.
The harder it is for you to download your data, the harder it is for you to leave.
Imagine that it's not your house but your mind. Are you required to let the police in - that is, testify against yourself? If so, the Fifth Amendment is meaningless. And if yes, how is that any different from the house example? After all, in both cases you are being ordered to actively assist in gathering evidence against you. And that is true in the case of being told to decrypt your hard drive, too.
Osama did. Not only did he deliver what appears to have been a mortal blow, both morally and economically, but got away with it too, living in comfort and watching his enemies finish his work for him, and finally receiving a quick and easy death just before the onset of old age, making him a martyr in the eyes of his followers.
But it does get us one step closer. It's one more prerequisite that no longer stands in the way. It's one less hurdle for anyone who wants to abuse a nationwise genetic database - such as the insurance companies, eugenists and the police.
Today it's swaps, tomorrow it's full genetic sequencing to get a better match and the day after that it's your genetic tendency towards addiction being used as a reasonable cause to search your house whenever the police wish. Which is perfectly rational because, after all, those tendencies are real and only a bleeding heart liberal would be soft on potential criminals. And the day after that they'll skip that step and just send you to a jail pre-emptively; it's unfortunate, but you will become a druggie anyway, it is your destiny.
But hey, maybe if you agree to pay for your own monitoring outside the prison... you understand, we can't burden genetically decent taxpayers with being soft on potential potheads.
Producing food people refuse to eat doesn't really outweight anything. Bonus points for doing said pointless production in an ethically questionable and economically and enviromentally destructive manner, and even those are awarded only by supervillains.
And by Japan, you actually mean a bunch of sleazy businessmen. Because it doesn't seem like ordinary Japanese have much of an interest in using this resource, seeing how that was the whole premise of this story.
Communist revolutions, fascism, two world wars, multiple genocides, tyranny, cold war and very nearly nuclear armageddon.
We'll see what interesting things we'll get this time around.
It's the same thing everywhere. Austerity is fashionable, so everyone is trying to compete by cutting costs, which means they're cutting quality, which means there's less and less reason why anyone would want their shit for any price.
It's hit newspaper industry especially hard, since they're directly competing with the Internet, but the entire world economy seems to be in a similar death spiral of austerity over investment.
You must be talking about some other Slashdot. In this one, everyone proposes their pet ideology as an instant solution to every problem, then start calling each other names when they don't instantly capitulate. So it's pretty much the same as political debate everywhere else.
The average human a century ago had a home, which might not have been fancy but still better than nothing, therefore your claim is absurd.
This has always been the case. Ever heard of the term "bread and circuses"? It has nothing to do with having "already won" and everything to do with short-sighted laziness.
Jack Chick, is that you?
Selection bias. If you have a voice in your head you're good friends with and which is helping you to become a happy, succesful person, why would you go see a doctor?
As it happens, there seem to be to produce such voices and visual hallucinations (which may or may not have a connection to schizophrenia), which apparently gained popularity after somehow getting mixed with My Little Pony fandom, because of course it would.
Prosecute? You mean appeal to the government to decide which of us it'll side with?
But yes, bounty hunters - also called mercenaries - would work to enforce your will. And they work just as well enforcing Joe Warlord's will, so you might have bigger problems than fraud.
Ladies and gentlemen, libertarianism in a nutshell: not having food is just like not having video games.
But to answer your question: without a government, whether you can take my stuff or I can take yours depends entirely on which one of us has a bigger club.
Close, but in your scenario it's possible to end up with less in hand as your income increases. How the real system works is that you only pay taxes on the portion of your income that exceeds $x (and higher percentages on portions exceeding other tresholds), solving this problem.
So... which one is it?
Caring about the conditions under which the product is made is another way of saying that said conditions are parameters to your utility function.
As long as people are willing to do business with China, why wouldn't the Chinese try to increase their profits by cutting corners? It's just capitalism working as intended.
I dunno, I think The Onion got it right.
Yes. Now ask yourself why. And the answer, of course, is obvious: members of the same species compete on resources (mates, food, nests), and differences between species make them less likely to compete for the same resources.
But it's different for technological civilizations. No matter their form, they'll want energy and matter to build tehnological items. We are going to either merge or compete.
It's the second point that's a potential problem. Planets are a source of raw materials, and that makes them valuable.
That's one way of describing the material that will inevitably flood the Internet, I guess.
People who would deny them to others.
And nothing is scarier. Which is fine when a horror writer does it, and very much not okay when law enforcement does.
No, the important part of this story is that you no longer have the right to remain silent, not that some perv was caught.
So maybe you shouldn't try to control web access from your network if you allow it at all, but rather deal with people browsing Slashdot or porn sites all day long when and if it becomes a problem?