You're conflating the "reasonableness" requirement with the requirement for a warrant: When you get arrested it's reasonable to search you, and it doesn't require a warrant. When that search reveals a bag of cocaine it's reasonable to search your house, but the police still have to get a warrant.
The defense in this case is making an analogy between a cell phone and house keys - you can search for and confiscate them from a person as part of an arrest without a warrant, but you have to get a warrant to use them to collect further evidence.
True, but they do have a right to search your person and your immediate surroundings for evidence that can be used against you, no warrant needed.
From your own link - "... There is no comparable justification, however, for routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest occurs—or, for that matter, for searching through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself. Such searches, in the absence of well recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a search warrant...."
[Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution - wikipedia.org] (the section of that page titled "Searches incident to a lawful arrest" is particularly relevant...)
Did you actually read that part? The search and seizure in the case of an arrest is only reasonable for the immediate area and only to secure weapons and evidence. To quote your own article - "The justification for such a search is to prevent the arrested individual from destroying evidence or using a weapon against the arresting officer."
Do you imagine that the signers of the 4th would have thought it "reasonable" that when a man is arrested the police can use his signet ring to send false messages to whomever they like without judicial oversight?
No difference in how gravity effects them, just a difference in initial positions.
I think they were asking why the one that escapes is always the one that ends up with positive energy, i.e. we never get 'reverse Hawking radiation' sucking up mass from the larger universe and adding it to the black hole. I vaguely know how this works, but my layman's understanding of QM isn't good enough for a decent explanation, and I don't want to lead others down the wrong path.
Given the birth rate difference between atheists versus religious people, how exactly do you atheists hope to prevent a complete Christian takeover in 20 years or so?
Seriously? Christian fundamentalist freak out that 2/3 of their kids don't go to church after they leave home, the fraction of "nones" among young people keeps climbing, and books describing the virtues of atheism are on bestseller lists.
Sure, religious people tend to breed more, but just like with anti-gay sentiment, the moment those kids hit the real world (with all of those "other" ideas) they start questioning their beliefs, mostly become more moderate, and a bunch of them drop it all together.
Don't treat me like I'm your secretary, don't put me on a pedestal. Treat me like a normal [cube-mate], give me projects appropriate for my level of competency, and if I screw something up call me on it.
Don't be a jerk, and don't "protect" people who don't want your "protection"? Soon you'll be saying that we should just treat people like people!
I support taxes because it's cheaper than paying for my own firefighters...
Which has nothing to do with the question at hand - why do we pay for what some variously call "welfare", "the social support system", "basic income", etc.
it's cheaper to help folks get back on their feet than to pay for the social ills that come from ignoring them
By focusing on efficiency you're ducking the question - why are you willing to spend any money at all on (or any time thinking about) those social ills?
The reality is that quantum physics bullshit is just classical physics with aether overlayed onto it.
No. If it was possible to easily 'fix' classical physics to explain quantum phenomena nobody would have invented quantum mechanics in the first place. QM is physicists throwing up their hands and saying "The math works perfectly, but there's nothing to make an analogy to!".
Occam's Razor demands a simpler and more direct explanation than all the fancy-shmancy quantum hand-waving sophistry.
Why? QM doesn't posit any new entities, just behavior that's not intuitive to human beings. Oh well, too bad for intuition.
Unfortunately "Something valuable" is meaninglessly subjective in most cases.
Subjective, sure. To the point of being meaningless, I don't think so.
"something valuable" in a post scarcity society is synonymous with: "Something some arbitrary number of people arbitrarily consider not a waste of time."
That's true even in today's society, and unless "post scarcity" also implies "cure for all diseases" I think the value of different activities isn't quite arbitrary.
You spending all day reading/posting to slashdot contributes exactly as much as someone who...
No, it doesn't. The value of slashdotting, even its value for myself alone, varies based on mood, how ill I'm feeling, weather, other things going on in my life. And that's not including value to other people...
There's any number of things that are appreciated but don't get a "value" attached to it.
Well, I certainly didn't mean "dollar value" or "exchange value". The fact that you listed certain predictable things (volunteer work, art, raising kids) and didn't include certain predictable things (counting to a billion out loud, digging a random hole and filling it back up, going on a killing spree) means that you have a pretty good idea of the kind of value I was referring to.
The third is to see it as the surcharge you pay because your favored capitalistic system doesn't actually work for everyone.
Sure, but why do you support paying that surcharge? If you do it out of fear or social pressure then it reduces to something like extortion. If you do it out of empathy or a sense of justice then it's basically a moral issue for you.
As for my "favored capitalistic system": I'm open-minded about other possibilities, but I would like to see some evidence of any successful large-scale economic system that isn't largely capitalistic.
There will simply be such a low amount of work vs the number of people needing to work, that either we need to do the basic income thing, or there will be masses of unemployed people raging in the streets. Or dying in them.
Or non-profits take over. If it takes $1,000/person to permanently give them what they need using automation, then it would take about 20 years for just the charity given in the US to fix the problem. And that doesn't include the prestige motivation ("Gates Foundation Cures Hunger, Forever!") and compounding (every person taken care of isn't using any charity in following years, and can volunteer or be expected to help out).
99% of the case, people will eventually bored and find something to do.
Sure. But will it be useful? Give me $2000/month and no social stigma, why shouldn't I just read and post to slashdot all day? I'll learn a lot, but won't be of much practical use. "Something to do" isn't the same as "something valuable".
Someone here has a sig about taxes being the price of civilization.
True, but there are (at least) two ways of looking at it. The first is to see it as moral, a needed contribution to keep society healthy and just. The second is to see it as extortion, $600/month per person is what the barbarians want in exchange for not burning your precious city to the ground.
The word "slave" is found nowhere in the Constitution of the United States, nor does anyone count as 3/5 or a person. Representatives and taxes are apportioned according to a rule that includes the phrase "three fifths of all other Persons".
Rape is very serious violation of a person's rights. That's why I hate it when people lie about it for their own advantage:
One of six U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape. More than a quarter of college age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14.
You get this by asking "Have you ever had sex when you really didn't want to?" and "Have you ever felt pressured to have sex?". Then you report the women who had sex because "well, it was our anniversary" or felt pressured because "he kept asking" as victims. No crime was even attempted, but politicians have some good talking points, and you get more funding to research the 'crisis'.
For one-third to one-half of the victims,... symptoms continue beyond the first few months and meet the conditions for the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder.
According to a group of students using a checklist (listing technical terms they don't really understand) to pretend to be doctors?
nearly two thirds of all women killed by guns are killed by their partner or ex-partner
And more men are killed by guns than women. [#whataboutthemenz, right?]
Spouses are also the leading cause of death for pregnant women in the US
I'm pretty sure that one got debunked along with the "Superbowl causes spike in ER visits by women" meme.
Women worldwide ages 15 through 44 are more likely to die or be maimed because of male violence than because of cancer, malaria, war and traffic accidents combined
Again, you're using 'facts' from a political site.
And that last point is the real issue. You're using context-free 'factoids' chosen and reworded by political consultants to have the largest emotional impact possible as if they were the results of objective, peer-reviewed scientific research with clearly explained methodology and valid comparisons to similar things. This is the liberal version of Fox News - tons of spin, maybe a bit of fact, but no real fact-checking.
You simply aren't going to be able to help to prevent or lessen the impact of something if you use BS as your source of information.
universally decrease yields for any farmer who is depending on putting aside pollinated seeds from this years crop
There may be a small loss, yes. But it won't be any bigger than if the other farmer(s) had planted hybrids, incompatible varieties, or varieties with undesirable traits. If you want to control what kind of seed your crops produce, you have to take responsibility yourself - which is something seed producers (and heirloom keepers) already have to do.
e.g. If you have an expensive purebred Pomeranian dog you want to breed, you can just let in run loose and you'll probably end up with puppies. But you can't get mad at the Poodle owner down the street because the puppies aren't worth what purebred puppies would be worth.
Terminator plants still produce pollen that can fertilize other plants, but those seeds will not germinate due to the terminator.
But that's the limit of the damage it can do, so I don't know why "cross-pollination with wild-type seeds" is something to worry about. Again, the damage won't be significantly worse than if someone planted a low-yield variety nearby.
Slashdot Mirror
You're conflating the "reasonableness" requirement with the requirement for a warrant: When you get arrested it's reasonable to search you, and it doesn't require a warrant. When that search reveals a bag of cocaine it's reasonable to search your house, but the police still have to get a warrant.
The defense in this case is making an analogy between a cell phone and house keys - you can search for and confiscate them from a person as part of an arrest without a warrant, but you have to get a warrant to use them to collect further evidence.
From your own link - "... There is no comparable justification, however, for routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest occurs—or, for that matter, for searching through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself. Such searches, in the absence of well recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a search warrant. ..."
Did you actually read that part? The search and seizure in the case of an arrest is only reasonable for the immediate area and only to secure weapons and evidence. To quote your own article - "The justification for such a search is to prevent the arrested individual from destroying evidence or using a weapon against the arresting officer."
Do you imagine that the signers of the 4th would have thought it "reasonable" that when a man is arrested the police can use his signet ring to send false messages to whomever they like without judicial oversight?
I think they were asking why the one that escapes is always the one that ends up with positive energy, i.e. we never get 'reverse Hawking radiation' sucking up mass from the larger universe and adding it to the black hole. I vaguely know how this works, but my layman's understanding of QM isn't good enough for a decent explanation, and I don't want to lead others down the wrong path.
I added both of you to my "It's complicated" list.
While I find the argument stomach-turning, I'm pretty sure they had both pet and stray cats back then.
Their politics tend to shift conservative, but they still don't get significantly more religious.
Last I checked, we tie with rapists.
Seriously? Christian fundamentalist freak out that 2/3 of their kids don't go to church after they leave home, the fraction of "nones" among young people keeps climbing, and books describing the virtues of atheism are on bestseller lists.
Sure, religious people tend to breed more, but just like with anti-gay sentiment, the moment those kids hit the real world (with all of those "other" ideas) they start questioning their beliefs, mostly become more moderate, and a bunch of them drop it all together.
Don't be a jerk, and don't "protect" people who don't want your "protection"? Soon you'll be saying that we should just treat people like people!
How well did the "just keep your legs together" argument worked for the anti-abortion crowd?
Which has nothing to do with the question at hand - why do we pay for what some variously call "welfare", "the social support system", "basic income", etc.
By focusing on efficiency you're ducking the question - why are you willing to spend any money at all on (or any time thinking about) those social ills?
No. If it was possible to easily 'fix' classical physics to explain quantum phenomena nobody would have invented quantum mechanics in the first place. QM is physicists throwing up their hands and saying "The math works perfectly, but there's nothing to make an analogy to!".
Why? QM doesn't posit any new entities, just behavior that's not intuitive to human beings. Oh well, too bad for intuition.
Subjective, sure. To the point of being meaningless, I don't think so.
That's true even in today's society, and unless "post scarcity" also implies "cure for all diseases" I think the value of different activities isn't quite arbitrary.
No, it doesn't. The value of slashdotting, even its value for myself alone, varies based on mood, how ill I'm feeling, weather, other things going on in my life. And that's not including value to other people...
Well, I certainly didn't mean "dollar value" or "exchange value". The fact that you listed certain predictable things (volunteer work, art, raising kids) and didn't include certain predictable things (counting to a billion out loud, digging a random hole and filling it back up, going on a killing spree) means that you have a pretty good idea of the kind of value I was referring to.
Sure, but why do you support paying that surcharge? If you do it out of fear or social pressure then it reduces to something like extortion. If you do it out of empathy or a sense of justice then it's basically a moral issue for you.
As for my "favored capitalistic system": I'm open-minded about other possibilities, but I would like to see some evidence of any successful large-scale economic system that isn't largely capitalistic.
Or non-profits take over. If it takes $1,000/person to permanently give them what they need using automation, then it would take about 20 years for just the charity given in the US to fix the problem. And that doesn't include the prestige motivation ("Gates Foundation Cures Hunger, Forever!") and compounding (every person taken care of isn't using any charity in following years, and can volunteer or be expected to help out).
Sure. But will it be useful? Give me $2000/month and no social stigma, why shouldn't I just read and post to slashdot all day? I'll learn a lot, but won't be of much practical use. "Something to do" isn't the same as "something valuable".
True, but there are (at least) two ways of looking at it. The first is to see it as moral, a needed contribution to keep society healthy and just. The second is to see it as extortion, $600/month per person is what the barbarians want in exchange for not burning your precious city to the ground.
Why wait for post-scarcity? There are people who live that way right now.
The word "slave" is found nowhere in the Constitution of the United States, nor does anyone count as 3/5 or a person. Representatives and taxes are apportioned according to a rule that includes the phrase "three fifths of all other Persons".
You go with him.
Azetbur: "Inalien..." if you could only hear yourselves. "Human rights." Why, the very name is racist.
So you could say "Feminism, the very name is sexist."
Rape is very serious violation of a person's rights. That's why I hate it when people lie about it for their own advantage:
You get this by asking "Have you ever had sex when you really didn't want to?" and "Have you ever felt pressured to have sex?". Then you report the women who had sex because "well, it was our anniversary" or felt pressured because "he kept asking" as victims. No crime was even attempted, but politicians have some good talking points, and you get more funding to research the 'crisis'.
According to a group of students using a checklist (listing technical terms they don't really understand) to pretend to be doctors?
And more men are killed by guns than women. [#whataboutthemenz, right?]
I'm pretty sure that one got debunked along with the "Superbowl causes spike in ER visits by women" meme.
Again, you're using 'facts' from a political site.
And that last point is the real issue. You're using context-free 'factoids' chosen and reworded by political consultants to have the largest emotional impact possible as if they were the results of objective, peer-reviewed scientific research with clearly explained methodology and valid comparisons to similar things. This is the liberal version of Fox News - tons of spin, maybe a bit of fact, but no real fact-checking.
You simply aren't going to be able to help to prevent or lessen the impact of something if you use BS as your source of information.
If you're talking about the legality of something, shouldn't you use the legal system's definition?
There may be a small loss, yes. But it won't be any bigger than if the other farmer(s) had planted hybrids, incompatible varieties, or varieties with undesirable traits. If you want to control what kind of seed your crops produce, you have to take responsibility yourself - which is something seed producers (and heirloom keepers) already have to do.
e.g. If you have an expensive purebred Pomeranian dog you want to breed, you can just let in run loose and you'll probably end up with puppies. But you can't get mad at the Poodle owner down the street because the puppies aren't worth what purebred puppies would be worth.
But that's the limit of the damage it can do, so I don't know why "cross-pollination with wild-type seeds" is something to worry about. Again, the damage won't be significantly worse than if someone planted a low-yield variety nearby.