There's no rule that says that if you disagree with a law and decide to break it, that you have to be willing to accept the punishment and draw attention to the situation. That's only one way to do civil disobedience, and it will only work if people are extremely sympathetic to those breaking that law. Uber's method of blatantly breaking the law but having anyone important untouchable due to technicalities, also works well. Presumably not getting caught would be yet another (and drawing attention via the amount of resources wasted on attempted enforcement).
Public civil disobedience would of course be the best method for those few who live in a democracy.
The police are still free to enforce the speed limit though. The defense in court that everyone was doing it doesn't hold any weight with the judge, and in in jury trials where the odds of finding people more sympathetic to the herd argument it might not work. Also in this analogy, if the police are letting speed infractions slide, they might still pull over tailgaters and other aggressive drivers that are making the road more dangerous irrespective of speed, or they might cite the speed limit infraction along with the reckless driving infraction.
No, in that area they will pull you over if you do go the speed limit, because if you're not speeding then you're impeding traffic. Go ahead and try it if you don't believe me.
The problem is that the people who make the rules, the people who enforce the rules, and the people most affected by the rules, are all different groups with different objectives. Reality is based on which rules are enforced or followed, not what is written.
As such it needs to abide by passenger livery laws. If it doesn't like the laws, and if the passengers in a given area also feel that there's a problem, they should work to change the laws, not to break them while claiming that the laws do not apply.
Or, they could just ignore the bad laws like a responsible grownup. (Eg, compare to certain places where the speed limit is 35 but no one goes below 55, it is clear that the law is bad, that the people don't want the law, but instead of changing it people and law enforcement just ignore it). Changing laws is hard!
Seems like the event was a success. While I generally disapprove of being intentionally rude, sometimes it has to be done to prevent people using their thin skin as a weapon. It's an absolute necessity when people go about threatening to kill people who don't self-censor.
I wasn't there so I can't judge them but I am sure many who fled had no conviction about Vietnam other than they didn't want to die in war over there, same as all the ones who did go.
They didn't flee from a war, they fled from a "police action". Since most of them weren't cops, that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
This doesn't quite make sense to me. Assuming the bots are smart enough to parse the earnings reports (highly plausible) wouldn't they react the same as if it were a proper release?
You see, you have to sell it now before the price drops. If you predict that the price will drop further due to panic selling, time to sell again. Then you buy it back after you predict that the panic has ended. If the sudden buying causes the price to soar, well then that just means you have to sell it again before other people notice...
Presumably if the release had been proper, the machines would have been instructed by humans as to what specifically to do with the stock when the markets opened, and also wouldn't predict any panics.
How about mandatory 24-hour surveillance on all politicians, publicly live-streamed?
Of course, some might say that then politicians would have to be very careful what they say in case someone takes an out-of-context quote and parades it everywhere and costs them their job. But then again, if they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to fear.
You can't contract out of child support, much like you can't contract into slavery. You can write the contract, sure, but no court will enforce it. The only way to (currently) do so is to donate sperm to a state-endorsed sperm bank. If you simply just donate sperm you will still be on the hook for child support - this has already been tested in courts.
What happens if you donate sperm to your girl via a state-endorsed sperm bank? This may be a way to loophole the current laws in the case of frozen embryos. (silly legal system)
In my opinion, there's a rather simple answer: Simply require the frozen embryo be adopted (ie, has two parents accepting the rights and responsibilities of raising the child) before being defrosted.
Also, in the future, people performing a "this is your last chance to have a child" operation ought to make sure the soon-to-be-infertile person ends up with the right to use their sample or have a very good reason why not.
The alternative is that people start demanding something be done about dangerous and misleading ads like "Viruses detected on your computer! Click here to install dangerous malware!". Or even ads that directly contain malware scripts and don't even require clicking. Basically, people have made ads distracting, misleading, privacy violating, and directly dangerous and people have no choice but to block them all.
And before you complain that ad blockers take money away from poor websites, keep in mind that this was a suicide -- they forced our hand by making ads too terrible to allow.
Here in Albuquerque, some of my friends that have put panels up found that even before the panels went live, their electric bills dropped 20+% just due to the panels providing shade for a portion of the roof.
Or they could paint their roof white/silver, for less than the price of a single solar panel.
This is a pathetic excuse for introducing intrusive technology to solve a non-problem. If you think about it for a bit, it would be a simple matter to have a cop start issuing fines until the non-compliance rate drops to an acceptable level. This would cost nothing, as traffic cops generally collect far more in fines than their wages. Instead, our Dear Leaders want to use this situation to direct the indignant fury against cheaters towards promoting an array of face recognition cameras to track your every movement.*
* Of course, for this phase of the plan, they won't publicly acknowledge that the cameras are there to ID you as well as the number of people in your car.
Muslims aren't too different from Christians -- after all, the both follow the God of Abraham. The main difference is that Christians have learned to ignore most of their Holy Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, and in general act as you'd expect from an atheist who's half-heartedly pretending to be a Christian. Whereas Muslims tend to act more like they actually believe their Holy Book.
Patent trolls, on the other hand... yeah, they should pay. Not only pay, but pay triple as punishment. Patent trolls are generally the exception... they just make the news a lot more often.
Trouble is, the real patent troll can't be made to pay. In case you're wondering, the real patent troll is the one that granted, not holds, the meaningless patent.
If there was anyone responsible for, and profiting from the whole patent mess, it is the patent office for granting all those frivolous patents and pocketing the fees while letting us pay the court costs, and even worse the opportunity costs of people too terrified of patents to do anything.
I will never understand why the loser doesn't pay the winner's fees.
That would be naturally anti-balanced. Consider that the person who spent the most is likelier to win (even wrongly), and similarly that would mean a terrible expenditure on the part of the loser, who would lose both his case and the tremendous legal fees of the winner. The tenancy would then be for both sides to spend all their money on the case, and for the lose to go bankrupt.
Ideally, the legal system should have the following traits: There should be a significant disadvantage for the aggressor, to discourage frivolous or non-frivolous but unnecessary lawsuits. It should not be too difficult nor risky for someone who was clearly harmed by another, to take legal action against them. The outcome should not be unduly influenced by money nor status. The less wealthy party should not face undue risk of losing, nor the more wealthy undue risk of being taken advantage of. Those clearly innocent should not be unduly harmed by the trial, the clearly guilty should not be able to get off with a meaningless punishment. The process should not be illegal. No violations of the Constitution, no perjury/parallel construction, no bribes/campaign contributions/threats of absurd punishment if one doesn't plead guilty
Medicine has yet to repair a spinal cord injury, but there are people out there who believe some doctor's going to perform a head transplant? Really?
Possibly. One of the problems with spinal injuries is scar tissue formation, and another nerve elongation (or lack thereof). But with a head transplant, the surgeon could leave extra spinal cord on one or both pieces, and then reduce to the proper length in whatever manner is best for reattachment.
Of course, I fully expect the patient to be paralyzed from the neck down, followed shortly by death. Most likely death before the new body is attached or consciousness regained. Cryonics seems like a safer gamble.
Or it could be related to "Digital Rights Management", which is code for "we don't trust you enough to let you have your own copy, and instead you must rely on us and hope we never go out of business, make a mistake, or decide your purchase is obsolete".
Wrong. Very very incredibly wrong. Substantially more than half of all incidents of cancer are the result of random mutation. No amount of "eating right" will change that.
Careful, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
(Almost) all cancers are the result of random mutation (there's a few infectious cancers in dogs and Tasmanian devils which aren't). And eating right can decrease the rate of random mutation, directly (antioxidants) or indirectly (general health, note also that stress increases mutation rate). Most likely the main benefits of eating right are metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease and general health, but those are themselves very good reasons.
Like with smoking, there are certain things you can eat which will increase your rate of mutation. Not eating those means you're less likely to get cancer than those who do. Agreed with you about the "organic foods" farce; those are sometimes better and sometimes worse, and worse is usually cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no rule that says that if you disagree with a law and decide to break it, that you have to be willing to accept the punishment and draw attention to the situation. That's only one way to do civil disobedience, and it will only work if people are extremely sympathetic to those breaking that law. Uber's method of blatantly breaking the law but having anyone important untouchable due to technicalities, also works well. Presumably not getting caught would be yet another (and drawing attention via the amount of resources wasted on attempted enforcement).
Public civil disobedience would of course be the best method for those few who live in a democracy.
The police are still free to enforce the speed limit though. The defense in court that everyone was doing it doesn't hold any weight with the judge, and in in jury trials where the odds of finding people more sympathetic to the herd argument it might not work. Also in this analogy, if the police are letting speed infractions slide, they might still pull over tailgaters and other aggressive drivers that are making the road more dangerous irrespective of speed, or they might cite the speed limit infraction along with the reckless driving infraction.
No, in that area they will pull you over if you do go the speed limit, because if you're not speeding then you're impeding traffic. Go ahead and try it if you don't believe me.
The problem is that the people who make the rules, the people who enforce the rules, and the people most affected by the rules, are all different groups with different objectives. Reality is based on which rules are enforced or followed, not what is written.
As such it needs to abide by passenger livery laws. If it doesn't like the laws, and if the passengers in a given area also feel that there's a problem, they should work to change the laws, not to break them while claiming that the laws do not apply.
Or, they could just ignore the bad laws like a responsible grownup. (Eg, compare to certain places where the speed limit is 35 but no one goes below 55, it is clear that the law is bad, that the people don't want the law, but instead of changing it people and law enforcement just ignore it). Changing laws is hard!
Seems like the event was a success. While I generally disapprove of being intentionally rude, sometimes it has to be done to prevent people using their thin skin as a weapon. It's an absolute necessity when people go about threatening to kill people who don't self-censor.
I wasn't there so I can't judge them but I am sure many who fled had no conviction about Vietnam other than they didn't want to die in war over there, same as all the ones who did go.
They didn't flee from a war, they fled from a "police action". Since most of them weren't cops, that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
This doesn't quite make sense to me. Assuming the bots are smart enough to parse the earnings reports (highly plausible) wouldn't they react the same as if it were a proper release?
You see, you have to sell it now before the price drops. If you predict that the price will drop further due to panic selling, time to sell again. Then you buy it back after you predict that the panic has ended. If the sudden buying causes the price to soar, well then that just means you have to sell it again before other people notice...
Presumably if the release had been proper, the machines would have been instructed by humans as to what specifically to do with the stock when the markets opened, and also wouldn't predict any panics.
How about mandatory 24-hour surveillance on all politicians, publicly live-streamed?
Of course, some might say that then politicians would have to be very careful what they say in case someone takes an out-of-context quote and parades it everywhere and costs them their job. But then again, if they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to fear.
You can't contract out of child support, much like you can't contract into slavery. You can write the contract, sure, but no court will enforce it. The only way to (currently) do so is to donate sperm to a state-endorsed sperm bank. If you simply just donate sperm you will still be on the hook for child support - this has already been tested in courts.
What happens if you donate sperm to your girl via a state-endorsed sperm bank? This may be a way to loophole the current laws in the case of frozen embryos. (silly legal system)
In my opinion, there's a rather simple answer: Simply require the frozen embryo be adopted (ie, has two parents accepting the rights and responsibilities of raising the child) before being defrosted.
Also, in the future, people performing a "this is your last chance to have a child" operation ought to make sure the soon-to-be-infertile person ends up with the right to use their sample or have a very good reason why not.
The alternative is that people start demanding something be done about dangerous and misleading ads like "Viruses detected on your computer! Click here to install dangerous malware!". Or even ads that directly contain malware scripts and don't even require clicking. Basically, people have made ads distracting, misleading, privacy violating, and directly dangerous and people have no choice but to block them all.
And before you complain that ad blockers take money away from poor websites, keep in mind that this was a suicide -- they forced our hand by making ads too terrible to allow.
Here in Albuquerque, some of my friends that have put panels up found that even before the panels went live, their electric bills dropped 20+% just due to the panels providing shade for a portion of the roof.
Or they could paint their roof white/silver, for less than the price of a single solar panel.
Yes, the professor failed the entire management class. He just couldn't manage the class.
This is a pathetic excuse for introducing intrusive technology to solve a non-problem. If you think about it for a bit, it would be a simple matter to have a cop start issuing fines until the non-compliance rate drops to an acceptable level. This would cost nothing, as traffic cops generally collect far more in fines than their wages. Instead, our Dear Leaders want to use this situation to direct the indignant fury against cheaters towards promoting an array of face recognition cameras to track your every movement.*
* Of course, for this phase of the plan, they won't publicly acknowledge that the cameras are there to ID you as well as the number of people in your car.
If he's got nothing to hide, he's got nothing to fear.
The Religion of Peace strikes again!
Muslims aren't too different from Christians -- after all, the both follow the God of Abraham. The main difference is that Christians have learned to ignore most of their Holy Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, and in general act as you'd expect from an atheist who's half-heartedly pretending to be a Christian. Whereas Muslims tend to act more like they actually believe their Holy Book.
Everyone's going to die thus everybody is going to _be_ dead anyway.
Not if they invent immortality first. For it to be a tautology, it would have to be logically guaranteed to be true, not just incredibly likely.
I'm not jumping to conclusions, but the people who have been making the case for historical alien visitors
Although I acknowledge that they're good workers, you should know that Mexicans aren't considered aliens in Mexico.
Patent trolls, on the other hand... yeah, they should pay. Not only pay, but pay triple as punishment. Patent trolls are generally the exception... they just make the news a lot more often.
Trouble is, the real patent troll can't be made to pay. In case you're wondering, the real patent troll is the one that granted, not holds, the meaningless patent.
If there was anyone responsible for, and profiting from the whole patent mess, it is the patent office for granting all those frivolous patents and pocketing the fees while letting us pay the court costs, and even worse the opportunity costs of people too terrified of patents to do anything.
This is not what the patent system was designed to do.
At least, not originally.
I will never understand why the loser doesn't pay the winner's fees.
That would be naturally anti-balanced. Consider that the person who spent the most is likelier to win (even wrongly), and similarly that would mean a terrible expenditure on the part of the loser, who would lose both his case and the tremendous legal fees of the winner. The tenancy would then be for both sides to spend all their money on the case, and for the lose to go bankrupt.
Ideally, the legal system should have the following traits:
There should be a significant disadvantage for the aggressor, to discourage frivolous or non-frivolous but unnecessary lawsuits.
It should not be too difficult nor risky for someone who was clearly harmed by another, to take legal action against them.
The outcome should not be unduly influenced by money nor status. The less wealthy party should not face undue risk of losing, nor the more wealthy undue risk of being taken advantage of.
Those clearly innocent should not be unduly harmed by the trial, the clearly guilty should not be able to get off with a meaningless punishment.
The process should not be illegal. No violations of the Constitution, no perjury/parallel construction, no bribes/campaign contributions/threats of absurd punishment if one doesn't plead guilty
So he built a nice, indestructible, iceberg-proof capsule. I assume he has an unsinkable ship to go with it?
Medicine has yet to repair a spinal cord injury, but there are people out there who believe some doctor's going to perform a head transplant? Really?
Possibly. One of the problems with spinal injuries is scar tissue formation, and another nerve elongation (or lack thereof). But with a head transplant, the surgeon could leave extra spinal cord on one or both pieces, and then reduce to the proper length in whatever manner is best for reattachment.
Of course, I fully expect the patient to be paralyzed from the neck down, followed shortly by death. Most likely death before the new body is attached or consciousness regained. Cryonics seems like a safer gamble.
"Nobody is going to die that wouldn't be dead anyway."
Yes, well, umm... that is a very, very nice neat tautology. I like it! :)
It's not a tautology, because it is not logically guaranteed to be true.
Or it could be related to "Digital Rights Management", which is code for "we don't trust you enough to let you have your own copy, and instead you must rely on us and hope we never go out of business, make a mistake, or decide your purchase is obsolete".
Wrong. Very very incredibly wrong. Substantially more than half of all incidents of cancer are the result of random mutation. No amount of "eating right" will change that.
Careful, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
(Almost) all cancers are the result of random mutation (there's a few infectious cancers in dogs and Tasmanian devils which aren't). And eating right can decrease the rate of random mutation, directly (antioxidants) or indirectly (general health, note also that stress increases mutation rate). Most likely the main benefits of eating right are metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease and general health, but those are themselves very good reasons.
Like with smoking, there are certain things you can eat which will increase your rate of mutation. Not eating those means you're less likely to get cancer than those who do. Agreed with you about the "organic foods" farce; those are sometimes better and sometimes worse, and worse is usually cheaper.