All else being equal, I'd rather extra money be spent determining someone's guilt or innocence, rather than incarcerating them. If people sentenced to death by incarceration received the same scrutiny as those facing death by lethal injection, then it would cost more to put someone in jail and throw away the key than to execute them.
If they're using some stupid automated grader, odds are a computer-generated essay could consistently grade higher than any humans (because it can focus on scoring without worrying about content).
A 10% tax on selling stocks held less than a month (or whatever numbers you think appropriate) would quickly put a stop to all sorts of shenanigans, while not harming, and in fact benefiting real investors. After all, the whole point of stocks is to allow investors to invest in a company, not some sort of gambling scheme.
Also got to kill the stupid environmentalists (only the stupid kind that are opposed to nuclear because it contains the word "nuclear", to coal, oil and gas cause it contains carbon, to hydroelectric cause of sediments, to wind cause of birds, to solar cause of toxic elements during production,...). Sadly, there aren't enough environmentalists who can look at the whole picture and realize that nuclear plants produce less radioactive waste than coal plants, skyscrapers kill more birds than wind power, etc., and that if they want to accomplish something they need to support a realistic objective.
Given that it's legal to call 911 while driving, or anywhere while a passenger, this was interfering with people's legal rights. Add to that the interference to first responders' communications, and the probability of people getting into an accident trying to figure out why their phone doesn't work (and no one being able to call for help) -- this guy was a danger to those around him, as well as illegally broadcasting.
He described a program called "Street Bump" in Boston that detected pot-holes using sensors in smartphones of citizens who had downloaded an app. The program inadvertently directed repair crews to wealthier neighborhoods, where people were more likely to carry smartphones and download the app.'
Oh noes! More tax money might be spent on the undeserving rich! Someone might raise a big stink about this, increasing the number of people who get this app! If too many people get the app, how can they justify hiring as many telephone operators for in-person reports, think of all the lost jobs!
In other news, one more person has discovered that when collecting data you need to account for inherent biases in collection if you want unbiased data.
The call for smart, ethical people to ban themselves from working at the NSA is not the solution. The NSA will simply hire instead smart, unethical people or smart, naive people. We should encourage smart, ethical people to work in all branches of the government and report any illegal/immoral things the government is doing. And then the public needs to kick the criminals/immoral government agents out of office.
Or we can pretend that a few people refusing to work for them will solve all our problems, no need for anyone else to do anything.
But why is fracking exempt from the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act?
Without atmospheric pressure, there's nothing to prevent the water from boiling, nor to push the water column up beyond the miniscule bit water tension/cohesion would give. You could do it in a vacuum if you had a liquid that doesn't boil in vacuum, and limit the height of the siphon to whatever was allowed by cohesion and capillary action, and perhaps needing to limit the rate of drainage. Some people might still qualify this as a siphon, others might not.
If this still confuses you, consider the equivalent of a siphon created by pulling a portion of a long rope up, over a pulley, and down below the level of the rest of the rope. Then gravity will pull the rope up and over the pulley and down to a lower level, like a siphon. A liquid siphon functions the same way, powered by gravity, but atmospheric pressure pushing the water up takes the place of the rope's tension. More atmospheric pressure will allow for the siphon to go over a taller hump, or increase the maximum flow rate for a given diameter siphon.
Pretty much any scientist knows all this. Apparently the news was because the Oxford English Dictionary wasn't written by a scientist.
Rights are inherent things, call it god given or natural, whatever you like. But they are not things granted by others, those things are privliges.
You have the right to life for example, you do not have the right to eat steak every day. Do you disagree with this?
These seem rather similar. I was granted life by my parents. I was granted nutrition by my parents, who acquired said resources through a complicated web of colleges, researchers, engineers, factories, government-built roads, culminating in high-yield farms growing special seeds with complex equipment, plus their jobs. You can't claim you have a right to life but no right to eat, because without food you die. You can't claim your privilege to life does not interfere with my right to shoot bullets wherever I like, or to poison you indirectly via pollution. All your so-called rights are equivalent to your so-called privileges, granted by men, restricting the freedoms of other men, and able to be taken away by men, eg by shooting you in the head.
No, what you're looking for is the difference between laws that forbid an action, vs laws that require an action (and thus directly cost someone resources).
That some government recogize rights and some do not is clear, but you cannot just make them up as you please, it doesn't work that way.
Pretending that things are rights that clearly are not in fact cheapens those things that are rights.
And I think you're cheapening the importance of communication, a pre-requisite to the very democracy that grants you the privileges of life (protected by laws regarding medicine, murder, pollution, and safety) and liberty (protected by the police and military). As population size and world complexity increases, do you think advances in communication are unnecessary to keep our democracy running efficiently?
Corporations are legally people. If a corporation commits a crime, it's corporate charter should be locked up for a few decades, and the corporation's freedoms should be limited to that given any other inmate. Do this, and suddenly you'll see a flood of individuals being held personally responsible.
I, for one, am surprised that so many of them are petitioning the government to have deafness declassified as a disability. Wait, you say they're simply selfishly trying to prevent others from partially curing their disability?
Further, why shouldn't CEOs get protection under this law? Fairness should mean equal protection under the law.
A CEO who pisses off the public and starts costing the company money or reputation, is performing his job poorly. Why shouldn't they get fired for poor performance like any other badly performing employee? If there were no public backlash it would be a different story, or most likely a non-story because nobody would care and he'd keep his job.
Slashdot Mirror
The main problem with testing this is "how does one generate infinite or near-infinite energy" to power something like this?
Use your local power plant. It produces near-infinite energy as far as lasers are concerned.
Just tell them that you and your friends have guns for self-defense and will go retrieve your property. The cops can do it for you or not.
Everyone knows that sterile and almost sterile are close enough for government work.
Next time I play, I'll suggest playing best 2 out of 3 so as to be able to use this tactic.
the Trampoline!
All else being equal, I'd rather extra money be spent determining someone's guilt or innocence, rather than incarcerating them. If people sentenced to death by incarceration received the same scrutiny as those facing death by lethal injection, then it would cost more to put someone in jail and throw away the key than to execute them.
I love to hear the cell phone addicts bleating about "safety issues" and "interfering with people's legal rights" when discussing this case.
Has it occurred to you that maybe your interpretation of the motivations of some guy on the internet are wrong? (I don't own a cell phone)
If they're using some stupid automated grader, odds are a computer-generated essay could consistently grade higher than any humans (because it can focus on scoring without worrying about content).
All my experience with a friendly bank calling you up to help you, turns out poorly...
A 10% tax on selling stocks held less than a month (or whatever numbers you think appropriate) would quickly put a stop to all sorts of shenanigans, while not harming, and in fact benefiting real investors. After all, the whole point of stocks is to allow investors to invest in a company, not some sort of gambling scheme.
Just kidding, they can have their S back. For now.
Also got to kill the stupid environmentalists (only the stupid kind that are opposed to nuclear because it contains the word "nuclear", to coal, oil and gas cause it contains carbon, to hydroelectric cause of sediments, to wind cause of birds, to solar cause of toxic elements during production, ...). Sadly, there aren't enough environmentalists who can look at the whole picture and realize that nuclear plants produce less radioactive waste than coal plants, skyscrapers kill more birds than wind power, etc., and that if they want to accomplish something they need to support a realistic objective.
Given that it's legal to call 911 while driving, or anywhere while a passenger, this was interfering with people's legal rights. Add to that the interference to first responders' communications, and the probability of people getting into an accident trying to figure out why their phone doesn't work (and no one being able to call for help) -- this guy was a danger to those around him, as well as illegally broadcasting.
Don't you know that laws don't apply to government officials?
I'm sure the people in question don't mind being sold to a different company.
He described a program called "Street Bump" in Boston that detected pot-holes using sensors in smartphones of citizens who had downloaded an app. The program inadvertently directed repair crews to wealthier neighborhoods, where people were more likely to carry smartphones and download the app.'
Oh noes! More tax money might be spent on the undeserving rich! Someone might raise a big stink about this, increasing the number of people who get this app! If too many people get the app, how can they justify hiring as many telephone operators for in-person reports, think of all the lost jobs!
In other news, one more person has discovered that when collecting data you need to account for inherent biases in collection if you want unbiased data.
The call for smart, ethical people to ban themselves from working at the NSA is not the solution. The NSA will simply hire instead smart, unethical people or smart, naive people. We should encourage smart, ethical people to work in all branches of the government and report any illegal/immoral things the government is doing. And then the public needs to kick the criminals/immoral government agents out of office.
Or we can pretend that a few people refusing to work for them will solve all our problems, no need for anyone else to do anything.
But why is fracking exempt from the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act?
Without atmospheric pressure, there's nothing to prevent the water from boiling, nor to push the water column up beyond the miniscule bit water tension/cohesion would give. You could do it in a vacuum if you had a liquid that doesn't boil in vacuum, and limit the height of the siphon to whatever was allowed by cohesion and capillary action, and perhaps needing to limit the rate of drainage. Some people might still qualify this as a siphon, others might not.
If this still confuses you, consider the equivalent of a siphon created by pulling a portion of a long rope up, over a pulley, and down below the level of the rest of the rope. Then gravity will pull the rope up and over the pulley and down to a lower level, like a siphon. A liquid siphon functions the same way, powered by gravity, but atmospheric pressure pushing the water up takes the place of the rope's tension. More atmospheric pressure will allow for the siphon to go over a taller hump, or increase the maximum flow rate for a given diameter siphon.
Pretty much any scientist knows all this. Apparently the news was because the Oxford English Dictionary wasn't written by a scientist.
Gravity pulling on the liquid creates a pressure differential -- but only if there's atmospheric pressure.
Rights are inherent things, call it god given or natural, whatever you like. But they are not things granted by others, those things are privliges.
You have the right to life for example, you do not have the right to eat steak every day. Do you disagree with this?
These seem rather similar. I was granted life by my parents. I was granted nutrition by my parents, who acquired said resources through a complicated web of colleges, researchers, engineers, factories, government-built roads, culminating in high-yield farms growing special seeds with complex equipment, plus their jobs. You can't claim you have a right to life but no right to eat, because without food you die. You can't claim your privilege to life does not interfere with my right to shoot bullets wherever I like, or to poison you indirectly via pollution. All your so-called rights are equivalent to your so-called privileges, granted by men, restricting the freedoms of other men, and able to be taken away by men, eg by shooting you in the head.
No, what you're looking for is the difference between laws that forbid an action, vs laws that require an action (and thus directly cost someone resources).
That some government recogize rights and some do not is clear, but you cannot just make them up as you please, it doesn't work that way.
Pretending that things are rights that clearly are not in fact cheapens those things that are rights.
And I think you're cheapening the importance of communication, a pre-requisite to the very democracy that grants you the privileges of life (protected by laws regarding medicine, murder, pollution, and safety) and liberty (protected by the police and military). As population size and world complexity increases, do you think advances in communication are unnecessary to keep our democracy running efficiently?
Corporations are legally people. If a corporation commits a crime, it's corporate charter should be locked up for a few decades, and the corporation's freedoms should be limited to that given any other inmate. Do this, and suddenly you'll see a flood of individuals being held personally responsible.
I, for one, am surprised that so many of them are petitioning the government to have deafness declassified as a disability. Wait, you say they're simply selfishly trying to prevent others from partially curing their disability?
Further, why shouldn't CEOs get protection under this law? Fairness should mean equal protection under the law.
A CEO who pisses off the public and starts costing the company money or reputation, is performing his job poorly. Why shouldn't they get fired for poor performance like any other badly performing employee? If there were no public backlash it would be a different story, or most likely a non-story because nobody would care and he'd keep his job.
Just out of curiosity, how do you know that the CIA did not know that our allies were invading an oil-rich country?