There is nothing by law that says there is anything wrong with that.
So it's almost certain that you have unauthorized copies of copyrighted material, and quite likely at least some child pornography - and at work no less. And you don't think either of those things is illegal?
I don't see anything wrong with that.
Because possibly having (I'm assuming undisclosed) copies of people's medical records, material under attorney-client privilege, trade secrets, things that could be used for insider trading or blackmail, credit card or social security numbers, etc doesn't pose an ethical issue to you? If you are informing the customers, fine, but if you aren't, find someone with a sense of responsibility and have a long chat with them.
This is basically the same thing CC did and it isn't a big deal.
The same argument applies to "the universe is expanding". We couldn't detect that either, because we're embedded in space time. We'd expand too. All we can see is the supposed effects of previous expansion, that of Hubble red shift.
So, we can't detect it, but we can see the effects? Isn't that like saying we can't detect the sun, only the light it supposedly is giving off?
Try the dots-on-the-balloon experiment. The dots get farther apart. But the distance between them as measured by the size of a dot remains constant.
Except in the real world the size of atoms, the speed of light, etc all stay the same - they don't get stretched. You taking a crude model too seriously.
It's the same argument because time and space are integrated as space-time. It's essentially the inability to get outside a frame of reference known as "universe".
Just because there's no privileged frame doesn't mean you can't make comparisons.
If "change in time" (dt) is going to go in the numerator, what will go in the denominator? Can't be dt, of course.
But it can be dt at a different location. How do you think "time slows down as you approach the speed of light" works?
You can't ask how much money you get per unit money.
All else being equal, the answer would be one. On the other hand: if you ask how much now for money later, that's related to the interest rate - how much US for Canadian, that's the exchange rate - how much when X is sold to how much when it was bought, that's return on investment.
(Note to nitpickers: the price of currency, e.g. the price of dollars in drachma, is not a valid counterexample.)
According to you. If exchange rates were static, I might let it pass (just different units), but exchange rates change constantly, so it isn't just meters vs feet.
No. This is about the most obviously correct court opinion I've ever heard of.
I get search warrants for the data on the machine. Therefore it should be held under the same rules as getting access to a safe or a house.
Right - you can get a warrant for a safe, but if they've moved the safe, you can't force them to tell you where it went.
someday my job wont be possible without good case law forcing defendants to give up encryption keys
Boo-hoo.
Problem is... there is usually a family fight long before law enforcement gets involved. This leaves the subject days to encrypt and clean any evidence he has.
And when someone commits a murder, they usually have time to ditch the gun. You still can't force them to tell you where it is.
We are completely understaffed, under-budgeted, and flooded with horrible crimes.
Yes, police need more money and fewer criminals. Write your representatives, ask for more funding, and tell them that terrorists and baby-rapers are getting away because you're too busy chasing potheads and hookers.
Plus, its not easy to get a search warrant. You need to satisfy probable cause in order for the judge to sign off on your warrant.
Where the hell do you think we live, the Police State of America?!?!? Yes, one government official has to convince another government official that he has a good reason to search or seize your stuff. My God, what a terrible burden - we might as well throw out "innocent until proven guilty", that can be difficult as well!
a legal search warrant already breaches your privacy to a fairly completely
This isn't a privacy issue, it's a compulsion issue. Your privacy can be invaded in almost any way imaginable if a warrant can be obtained, but you can't be compelled to provide incriminating information against yourself under any circumstances.
No, no, no, no, no. In both cases lying is a crime, and in both cases you can't be compelled to provide incriminating information about yourself.
Haven't you heard of the right to remain silent? The only thing cops can make you tell them (last time I heard) is your name and address - everything else can wait until you get a lawyer (which you also have a right to).
Like I said, you'll do anything, say anything to minimize your own transgressions.
Apparently you're arguing that since both Bill and George have people that defend them, that both of their transgressions are equivalently grave.
Both of you are trying to defend someone, but only one of you is being absurd. On the other hand, distracting people with irrelevant tangents is a good tactic.
people who remain completely abstinent for their entire lives can be confident they won't catch it
This is false - HPV is transmitted through skin to skin contact, and can even be spread through sharing drinks. Unless you're bubble-boy, you can still get it.
Just because you can mitigate a risk, doesn't mean that you should have a legal obligation to mitigate it. People deal with thousands of unlikely but serious risks every day, and it's absurd to suggest that every one should be eradicated at all costs when it's attached to a business in some way.
It was "too hot" in the context of safety.... But no, they decided to put people at risk just to make a buck. And that is why the lawsuit is valid.
The risks were smaller than the plaintiffs would have faced preparing the same breakfast for themselves and carrying it to their cars. Last I heard, the FDA ignores risks that are smaller than one in a million, and there's no reason that a business should be held to a higher standard.
You're using the word 'witness' in a much broader sense than I was. People that see rare events, and are unprepared for them, very often perceive things quite differently than more objective observers. As things get more systematic and repeatable, things do get better, as you pointed out.
Right now, from the public perspective, its not as much as one might think, and that's really why superstition is making a comeback.
You also seem to be starting from the wrong assumption that the burden of proof is on people claiming that global warming is happening and carbon emissions are dangerous. Quite to the contrary: given the potential risks, the burden of proof is on people arguing that continued massive carbon emissions are safe.
In science, the burden of proof always lies with the person making the claim. When global warming was just a new hypothesis, the burden of proof was on those saying it was a real phenomenon. Now that they have solid evidence for their claim the burden has shifted, but as long as we're talking only about science, where the biggest risk is isn't relevant.
Now, if we're talking about policy, we have to both weigh the risks as well as consequences. But, as far as I know, the phrase "burden of proof" only deals with probabilities and evidence, not how grave the consequences could be.
You do realize that eyewitness accounts are among the least reliable types of evidence, right? And sometimes it takes a long time to do things the right way (with solid proof) as opposed to the easy way (believing what others tell you), especially when the evidence is so sparse.
Terrorists take your rights and freedom (plus your life if you're unlucky enough). Big Brother takes away your privacy. I know which I'd rather lose.
Chance of BB taking privacy if it's accepted, 100%. Chance of BB abusing their ability to invade privacy in order to do other undesirable things, 99%. Chance of BB letting the government committing acts as bad as terrorists, maybe 50%.
Chance of terrorist killing you less than 1/10 %. Chance of terrorist taking rights and freedom from many people without government help, 0%.
You need to take into account the chances of the bad things happening as well as how bad they are. Terrorist scare me like serial killers do - lock your doors, make sure the cops are doing their jobs, and don't pick up hitchhikers - but that's about it. The implementation of a real BB would scare me like the rise of fascism scared my British Great-Grandpa - time to leave the country (brought family to US), and get ready to fight (in his case, Air Force).
Well, actually, the "part of the brain" we're talking about leaving out is the whole thing, so yes we are and you're making my point for me.
I'm agreeing that leaving out the whole brain is probably not the best way to go. I'm just suggesting a more realistic alternative that avoids your objection - namely leaving out the parts of the brain that lead to being a person rather than just a body.
But even if we weren't, how easy is it going to be to remove most of the brain except the bits that control bodily development?
The only parts of the brain that control growth or development would be the parts that secrete hormones, like the pituitary gland - neural signals don't play a part in it. First, all of those parts are in the lower parts of the brain, and those structures are distinct in several ways, so it should be possible to knock out only the higher parts that are associated with 'personhood'. Second, given how many people use insulin, HGH, melatonin, etc., artificial replacement of the hormones should be possible as well.
One point I meant to add earlier and forgot is that much of the body tends to atrophy if not used, so while the brain may not directly affect it, a conscious brain is required if you want to make a useful body at the end of the process.
You're right, 'blanks' (or whatever you want to call them) would have all of the problems that a coma patient would have. But people have awakened after ten years in a coma and recovered, so this seems more like a cost or ease of use issue than anything else - but I'll take physical therapy over death any day. On the other hand, if you have three backups, losing one isn't a moral issue, so costs could probably be cut quite a bit and experimentation to find better techniques should be easier.
I assume that the body's growth outside of the womb is in large part due to mechanisms controlled by the brain.
Physical development is almost completely indifferent to the brain - genetics, chemical signals and location in the body do most of the work. The brain stem does have some glands that would be good to keep for 'normal' development, but the isn't the part of the brain we're trying to leave out. There are quite a few functioning adults with only half their brain intact - they develop fine with only one hemisphere.
We would then end up with legitimate children of a body and a jerk.
We already have surrogate mothers, and laws to handle them. We might have to deal with "it isn't rape because the body isn't a person, but you did use my property/genes without my permission", but that should fit well in existing law with minimal modification.
We could be seriously screwed up having to fight our own body.
It would be weird because you're not used to it, but it isn't any stranger that fighting someone who can kill you from a distance, getting up-to-the-minute news, or eating cooked food.
If we start growing full bodies for replacement parts, we might end up with serious problems. And those problems are ignoring all possible moral/ethical issues we might have on our way to get there.
Well, we could have problems, and there are ethical issues to discuss. On the other hand, the objections you've raised aren't the real problem ones.
Hardly. That's a valid opinion if you were his wife at the time, otherwise it's noneofyourfuckingbusiness.
Wait, "pla" can't think that someone's a dipshit if they aren't married to that person? I dislike him for signing the DMCA, how would my (hypothetical) gay marriage to him make my opinion more valid?
I'm not trying to be all gloom and doom, but there's no way they fully understand what modifications they made.
Right.
Until they can -for sure- know all the effects modifying a gene will have, they can't say that their research means anything.
Well, they do have some good evidence to back up their claim, and that's all science accepts - degrees of acceptance based on evidence. Besides, Newton's concept of gravity was wrong, but I wouldn't say his work was meaningless.
I happen to believe that they are correct in that mice fears predators at an instinct level... But I disagree that it's smell alone.
I don't think the mice lost all fear of cats, just one specific, instinctive fear based solely on smell. Mice that haven't had any experience with cats at all will scramble away from areas that smell like cat, mice with the modification treat it just like any other new smell. They still fear big things that chase them, things that have hurt them before, etc.
I should note that nature has already done this using a pathogen. The parasite causes the mice to lose their fear of a cat's smell, and increases the parasite's chance of getting into a cat's gut to complete its life cycle.
Now, suppose I come over to your house, I knock on the door, only to be greeted by the FBI. Should I be thrown in jail?
If I have a restraining order, yes. If not, then a serious chat with the cops and a restraining order are appropriate.
If I'm arrested, that's thought crime.
"Thought crime" refers to crimes based on your beliefs and desires, not things that you threaten to do. If you're arrested for advocating "ass-rape should be legal", that's thought crime. If you're arrested for threatening to commit a crime, your thoughts (in this case intent) may play a part of your crime, but it's outside the traditional definition of "thought crime". Just like yelling "fire" in a theater isn't protected under free speech, intent to commit a crime isn't protected under freedom of thought.
What if I show up, ask for you, and tell about my intentions only to find out you don't really exist as FBI agents crash through the windows and rappel down the chimney? That's entrapment
First, it isn't entrapment because I didn't entice you to commit your crime. Having a nice ass isn't enough, I have to induce you to commit the crime. Second, only the state (or people acting as their agents) can entrap. If I talk you into helping me rob someone, that's not entrapment unless I'm working for the cops. On the show they are enticing, but the cops aren't the ones initiating the plot or doing the enticing. I think it sucks, but it isn't legally entrapment.
It doesn't become an actual crime until I find you and apply my cheese grater to your ass
Yeah, try that in court - "Your honor, the cops busted in before I had a chance to shoot him, so I didn't commit a crime at all!" That should work well.
14 year old... show up at the allotted place for sex... sounds like thought crime to me.
If they just thought about it, it wouldn't be a crime. Heck, if they just talked about it, it wouldn't be a crime. But when someone plans to commit a crime, and then shows up to commit it, then it's no longer just "thought", is it?
There are plenty of other ethical issues with this sort of thing, but it isn't punishing people based solely on their thoughts.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's almost certain that you have unauthorized copies of copyrighted material, and quite likely at least some child pornography - and at work no less. And you don't think either of those things is illegal?
I don't see anything wrong with that.
Because possibly having (I'm assuming undisclosed) copies of people's medical records, material under attorney-client privilege, trade secrets, things that could be used for insider trading or blackmail, credit card or social security numbers, etc doesn't pose an ethical issue to you? If you are informing the customers, fine, but if you aren't, find someone with a sense of responsibility and have a long chat with them.
This is basically the same thing CC did and it isn't a big deal.
Yes, it is a big deal.
So, we can't detect it, but we can see the effects? Isn't that like saying we can't detect the sun, only the light it supposedly is giving off?
Try the dots-on-the-balloon experiment. The dots get farther apart. But the distance between them as measured by the size of a dot remains constant.
Except in the real world the size of atoms, the speed of light, etc all stay the same - they don't get stretched. You taking a crude model too seriously.
It's the same argument because time and space are integrated as space-time. It's essentially the inability to get outside a frame of reference known as "universe".
Just because there's no privileged frame doesn't mean you can't make comparisons.
But it can be dt at a different location. How do you think "time slows down as you approach the speed of light" works?
You can't ask how much money you get per unit money.
All else being equal, the answer would be one. On the other hand: if you ask how much now for money later, that's related to the interest rate - how much US for Canadian, that's the exchange rate - how much when X is sold to how much when it was bought, that's return on investment.
(Note to nitpickers: the price of currency, e.g. the price of dollars in drachma, is not a valid counterexample.)
According to you. If exchange rates were static, I might let it pass (just different units), but exchange rates change constantly, so it isn't just meters vs feet.
No. This is about the most obviously correct court opinion I've ever heard of.
I get search warrants for the data on the machine. Therefore it should be held under the same rules as getting access to a safe or a house.
Right - you can get a warrant for a safe, but if they've moved the safe, you can't force them to tell you where it went.
someday my job wont be possible without good case law forcing defendants to give up encryption keys
Boo-hoo.
Problem is... there is usually a family fight long before law enforcement gets involved. This leaves the subject days to encrypt and clean any evidence he has.
And when someone commits a murder, they usually have time to ditch the gun. You still can't force them to tell you where it is.
We are completely understaffed, under-budgeted, and flooded with horrible crimes.
Yes, police need more money and fewer criminals. Write your representatives, ask for more funding, and tell them that terrorists and baby-rapers are getting away because you're too busy chasing potheads and hookers.
Plus, its not easy to get a search warrant. You need to satisfy probable cause in order for the judge to sign off on your warrant.
Where the hell do you think we live, the Police State of America?!?!? Yes, one government official has to convince another government official that he has a good reason to search or seize your stuff. My God, what a terrible burden - we might as well throw out "innocent until proven guilty", that can be difficult as well!
This isn't a privacy issue, it's a compulsion issue. Your privacy can be invaded in almost any way imaginable if a warrant can be obtained, but you can't be compelled to provide incriminating information against yourself under any circumstances.
Fixed that for you.
Haven't you heard of the right to remain silent? The only thing cops can make you tell them (last time I heard) is your name and address - everything else can wait until you get a lawyer (which you also have a right to).
Apparently you're arguing that since both Bill and George have people that defend them, that both of their transgressions are equivalently grave.
Both of you are trying to defend someone, but only one of you is being absurd. On the other hand, distracting people with irrelevant tangents is a good tactic.
Love to.
15 TW/year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_use_in_the_United_States)
You've confused the US with the world, and TW with TWh. Reread the very first sentence of the article - your figures are all off by a factor of 2000.
Yes, there is one 'u' in humor. There might be a double-you, but certainly not two yews.
This is false - HPV is transmitted through skin to skin contact, and can even be spread through sharing drinks. Unless you're bubble-boy, you can still get it.
You're a perfect demonstration of the problem discussed in the article.
Just because you can mitigate a risk, doesn't mean that you should have a legal obligation to mitigate it. People deal with thousands of unlikely but serious risks every day, and it's absurd to suggest that every one should be eradicated at all costs when it's attached to a business in some way.
It was "too hot" in the context of safety. ... But no, they decided to put people at risk just to make a buck. And that is why the lawsuit is valid.
The risks were smaller than the plaintiffs would have faced preparing the same breakfast for themselves and carrying it to their cars. Last I heard, the FDA ignores risks that are smaller than one in a million, and there's no reason that a business should be held to a higher standard.
You're using the word 'witness' in a much broader sense than I was. People that see rare events, and are unprepared for them, very often perceive things quite differently than more objective observers. As things get more systematic and repeatable, things do get better, as you pointed out.
Right now, from the public perspective, its not as much as one might think, and that's really why superstition is making a comeback.
That I have to agree with.
You also seem to be starting from the wrong assumption that the burden of proof is on people claiming that global warming is happening and carbon emissions are dangerous. Quite to the contrary: given the potential risks, the burden of proof is on people arguing that continued massive carbon emissions are safe.
In science, the burden of proof always lies with the person making the claim. When global warming was just a new hypothesis, the burden of proof was on those saying it was a real phenomenon. Now that they have solid evidence for their claim the burden has shifted, but as long as we're talking only about science, where the biggest risk is isn't relevant.
Now, if we're talking about policy, we have to both weigh the risks as well as consequences. But, as far as I know, the phrase "burden of proof" only deals with probabilities and evidence, not how grave the consequences could be.
You do realize that eyewitness accounts are among the least reliable types of evidence, right? And sometimes it takes a long time to do things the right way (with solid proof) as opposed to the easy way (believing what others tell you), especially when the evidence is so sparse.
Chance of BB taking privacy if it's accepted, 100%. Chance of BB abusing their ability to invade privacy in order to do other undesirable things, 99%. Chance of BB letting the government committing acts as bad as terrorists, maybe 50%.
Chance of terrorist killing you less than 1/10 %. Chance of terrorist taking rights and freedom from many people without government help, 0%.
You need to take into account the chances of the bad things happening as well as how bad they are. Terrorist scare me like serial killers do - lock your doors, make sure the cops are doing their jobs, and don't pick up hitchhikers - but that's about it. The implementation of a real BB would scare me like the rise of fascism scared my British Great-Grandpa - time to leave the country (brought family to US), and get ready to fight (in his case, Air Force).
I'm agreeing that leaving out the whole brain is probably not the best way to go. I'm just suggesting a more realistic alternative that avoids your objection - namely leaving out the parts of the brain that lead to being a person rather than just a body.
But even if we weren't, how easy is it going to be to remove most of the brain except the bits that control bodily development?
The only parts of the brain that control growth or development would be the parts that secrete hormones, like the pituitary gland - neural signals don't play a part in it. First, all of those parts are in the lower parts of the brain, and those structures are distinct in several ways, so it should be possible to knock out only the higher parts that are associated with 'personhood'. Second, given how many people use insulin, HGH, melatonin, etc., artificial replacement of the hormones should be possible as well.
One point I meant to add earlier and forgot is that much of the body tends to atrophy if not used, so while the brain may not directly affect it, a conscious brain is required if you want to make a useful body at the end of the process.
You're right, 'blanks' (or whatever you want to call them) would have all of the problems that a coma patient would have. But people have awakened after ten years in a coma and recovered, so this seems more like a cost or ease of use issue than anything else - but I'll take physical therapy over death any day. On the other hand, if you have three backups, losing one isn't a moral issue, so costs could probably be cut quite a bit and experimentation to find better techniques should be easier.
Physical development is almost completely indifferent to the brain - genetics, chemical signals and location in the body do most of the work. The brain stem does have some glands that would be good to keep for 'normal' development, but the isn't the part of the brain we're trying to leave out. There are quite a few functioning adults with only half their brain intact - they develop fine with only one hemisphere.
We already have surrogate mothers, and laws to handle them. We might have to deal with "it isn't rape because the body isn't a person, but you did use my property/genes without my permission", but that should fit well in existing law with minimal modification.
We could be seriously screwed up having to fight our own body.
It would be weird because you're not used to it, but it isn't any stranger that fighting someone who can kill you from a distance, getting up-to-the-minute news, or eating cooked food.
If we start growing full bodies for replacement parts, we might end up with serious problems. And those problems are ignoring all possible moral/ethical issues we might have on our way to get there.
Well, we could have problems, and there are ethical issues to discuss. On the other hand, the objections you've raised aren't the real problem ones.
Hardly. That's a valid opinion if you were his wife at the time, otherwise it's noneofyourfuckingbusiness.
Wait, "pla" can't think that someone's a dipshit if they aren't married to that person? I dislike him for signing the DMCA, how would my (hypothetical) gay marriage to him make my opinion more valid?
Right.
Until they can -for sure- know all the effects modifying a gene will have, they can't say that their research means anything.
Well, they do have some good evidence to back up their claim, and that's all science accepts - degrees of acceptance based on evidence. Besides, Newton's concept of gravity was wrong, but I wouldn't say his work was meaningless.
I happen to believe that they are correct in that mice fears predators at an instinct level... But I disagree that it's smell alone.
I don't think the mice lost all fear of cats, just one specific, instinctive fear based solely on smell. Mice that haven't had any experience with cats at all will scramble away from areas that smell like cat, mice with the modification treat it just like any other new smell. They still fear big things that chase them, things that have hurt them before, etc.
I should note that nature has already done this using a pathogen. The parasite causes the mice to lose their fear of a cat's smell, and increases the parasite's chance of getting into a cat's gut to complete its life cycle.
If I have a restraining order, yes. If not, then a serious chat with the cops and a restraining order are appropriate.
If I'm arrested, that's thought crime.
"Thought crime" refers to crimes based on your beliefs and desires, not things that you threaten to do. If you're arrested for advocating "ass-rape should be legal", that's thought crime. If you're arrested for threatening to commit a crime, your thoughts (in this case intent) may play a part of your crime, but it's outside the traditional definition of "thought crime". Just like yelling "fire" in a theater isn't protected under free speech, intent to commit a crime isn't protected under freedom of thought.
What if I show up, ask for you, and tell about my intentions only to find out you don't really exist as FBI agents crash through the windows and rappel down the chimney? That's entrapment
First, it isn't entrapment because I didn't entice you to commit your crime. Having a nice ass isn't enough, I have to induce you to commit the crime. Second, only the state (or people acting as their agents) can entrap. If I talk you into helping me rob someone, that's not entrapment unless I'm working for the cops. On the show they are enticing, but the cops aren't the ones initiating the plot or doing the enticing. I think it sucks, but it isn't legally entrapment.
It doesn't become an actual crime until I find you and apply my cheese grater to your ass
Yeah, try that in court - "Your honor, the cops busted in before I had a chance to shoot him, so I didn't commit a crime at all!" That should work well.
If they just thought about it, it wouldn't be a crime. Heck, if they just talked about it, it wouldn't be a crime. But when someone plans to commit a crime, and then shows up to commit it, then it's no longer just "thought", is it?
There are plenty of other ethical issues with this sort of thing, but it isn't punishing people based solely on their thoughts.
No, he still chose to allow his administration to do it, so he's still the primary villain.
A Democrat who destroyed the previously stable set of checks and balances?
Well, a long line of people from both parties paved the way for this to happen, yes.