Not true. There have been many UBI pilot programs and they all found that some people stopped working. Other people worked fewer hours. Even more common was that two-earner households became one-earner households. Women with young children are the most likely to drop out of the labor force.
The V/STOL Marine version of the F-35 is completely separate from the Air Force and Navy versions.
Yet the ability to create a V/STOL version required compromises in the airframe, engine placement, and many other areas of the base design, that weaken all the versions. Likewise, the Navy's need for an airframe that can handle steam catapult launches and arresting cable landings, means that the Air Force is getting a heavier airframe than they need, resulting in a slower plane with a reduced range.
If they had been able to dismiss it successfully, would that have set a legal precedent?
It would have set precedent within this court's jurisdiction, which would have had a powerful impact, since it encompasses Silicon Valley, San Francisco, and all of coastal California from Monterey to the Oregon border.
It would not have set binding precedent in other jurisdictions, but other courts would still tend to tilt toward an established ruling.
TL;DR: If it had gone the other way, it would have been really bad.
It also shows a guy asking Francine, and she said yes.
Anything else is adding something that isn't in the cartoon.
That is sort of the point. The cartoon is totally unclear about what is "entrapment" and what is not. I presents two situations that that are nearly indistinguishable, and labels one as OBVIOUS entrapment, and the other as obviously NOT entrapment, yet doesn't explain what makes the two situations different. Saying that it is "Francine changed her mind" or "Grayson didn't hesitate" may be what the cartoonist intended, but other people in this thread thought the difference was something totally different, such as the "life and death" nature of the requests.
In my opinion, and the opinion of my attorney co-worker, they were both entrapped, and for the exact same reasons.
But with the F-35, it is the Marines, not the USAF, that are ruining it. The V/STOL capability has required a lot of compromises in other capabilities.
Nope. Whether you count homicide rate or total homicides, USA wins.
Not when you consider all of Europe. Russia has a murder rate about twice that of America. Ukraine also a higher murder rate. When you look at the entire continent, Europe "wins".
I think the difference is that Francine did say 'no'.
The Grayson example did NOT say he agreed on the first request. If "agreeing immediately" is such a critical distinction, shouldn't that have been mentioned?
It seems to me that the critical difference is that Francine is a "nice" white girl, while Grayson is a "bad" person that hangs out on the street, and is probably a shifty minority. So that makes his entrapment okay.
We don't usually label somebody as mad who hasn't gone off the deep end.
We often label people as mad because they stick to their principles and refuse to compromise.
I have dealt with RMS many times, I don't care for him much as a person, and certainly wouldn't want him as a co-worker or roommate. But I admire his perseverance, consistency, and integrity.
I meant catch up in other ways. Sorry if that was unclear.
Okay, but I don't think there is any catching up to do. I felt like my military experience gave me a head start. When I later went to college, I had a much deeper and more mature perspective. To other students in history class, the places mentioned were just names on a map. But I had been there. I had a better understanding of the world, I had learned to speak some Japanese and Tagalog, and even more Mandarin (and eventually married a Chinese girl), and that opened a lot of opportunities in business and high-tech, especially as so much of the world's economy has shifted to Asia.
If you want to pay higher taxes to subsidize the mortgage on my McMansion in San Jose, I am not going to refuse the money, but I certainly don't need it, and veterans in general don't need it anymore than anyone else.
I imagine the pay isn't as good as in the private sector
You imagine wrong. For an 18 year old high school graduate, the pay is pretty good. When you add in basic necessities that are provided for free (food, housing, ammunition), it is a pretty good deal
... and volunteering is more noble than otherwise.
My reasons for joining had nothing to do with being "noble" or "serving my country" or any of that crap. It was a testosterone driven desire for adventure. I wanted to jump out of airplanes, ride in helicopters, and go see the world (Yes, I did all of those things as a Marine).
Perhaps some effort should be spent ensuring active duty personnel and veterans are offered opportunities...
Veterans benefits, like any other entitlement, will always be twisted toward those that can organize, manipulate the system, and contribute to politicians,... in other words successful people that don't really need the benefits.
Giving you some opportunity to catch up with the rest of us seems reasonable.
Except that we don't need to "catch up". According to the DOL, veterans are doing better than average in median income.
I wonder how effective that is. I enlisted in the Marines on my 18th birthday, and I had never heard of any benefits (and in general, had no idea what I was signing up for). Maybe the more brain-oriented branches (AF, Navy) are different, but I never heard any Marine say he enlisted to pay for college, or to get a home loan.
Where's the recognition for the police or firefighters or others who clearly face far more danger
Neither policing nor firefighting is particularly dangerous. Farmers, truck drivers, and retail clerks are all more likely to die or be injured on the job.
The most common reason that police die on the job is traffic accidents. The second most common reason is suicide.
Over a 30 year career, this is the number of times that most police officers fire their weapon in action: 0.
There are a good number of defence technology companies who will consider veterans.
When I left the military, my first coding job was with a defense company. They hired vets for several reasons:
1. I already had a security clearance. 2. I knew military lingo and acronyms. 3. When interacting with our military clients, I knew that colonels and generals don't like to be addressed as "dude".
Apparently your co-worker didn't read far enough down the page:
She went to law school, so I don't think she needs to read a webcomic to understand the law.
Sorry, Grayson. They can ask all they want. All you had to say was No.
Yet the example given that IS entrapment (Francine), is the same situation. She is asked, and refuses. She is asked again, and agrees to break the law. All she had to say was "No". The only difference between Francine and Grayson is that Francine is described as "nice".
The school should get fully paid only after the student completes the course, gets a job, and is employed for six months. That will increase their incentive to work with local employers, teach skills that are actually in demand, and help with job placement. It will decrease their incentive to enroll people that clearly can't do the work.
There is zero reason to give them anything but their last paycheck on the way out the door.
As a veteran, I pretty much agree with this. The military is 100% volunteer, and the pay is pretty good. Of course we need to take care of people that were wounded or disabled in the line of duty, but for everyone else, the handouts and entitlements are excessive. The benefits are also heavily skewed toward those that need them the least. I used a VA loan to buy a house in San Jose, one of the most expensive housing markets in the world, and over the life of the loan I will get about $200k in taxpayer funded subsidies, which I am happy to accept but certainly don't "need". Yet many veterans living in trailer parks don't have the ability or knowledge to benefit from the same program.
In many ways, veterans are just another special interest group, with a huge voting block to back them up. It is difficult for politicians to resist their demands because they don't want attack ads claiming they "don't care about vets".
The end justifies the means is a rather dangerous attitude.
Especially since it isn't clear that the means leads to the end. The presumption is that viewing child porn leads to violence against children. There is very little evidence to support that hypothesis, and quite a bit more that contradicts it. Over the last 20 years, access to porn has skyrocketed because of the Internet, but sexual violence has gone down by 55%. Perhaps mastrubating to porn functions as an alternative to "real" sex.
The argument that child porn hurts children during its creation is bogus. This is true because of the illegality. If it was legal, and regulated, it could be created with EFX that avoided the use of actual children, so the harm would go down.
Other countries have taken a more enlightened approach. In Japan, pedophiles can buy child sex dolls that appear to reduce harm. Yet those dolls are illegal in most other countries, including the US and Canada. It is hard to justify that by claiming that it "helps children".
I always refer to this when people spout off about entrapment. It doesn't get any more clear than this.
One of my co-workers has a law degree. I showed her your link. According to her, the second example (Grayson) is pretty clearly entrapment. The guy was not predisposed to commit a crime until the police created the opportunity and enticed him into it.
Bad idea. Arctic glaciers hive off from land glaciers and are irregular in shape. As they move through warm water and melt, they can become unstable, and roll over. Antarctic glaciers tend to be flat and stable. They also tend to be much bigger. Of course the route to the Persian Gulf is much more direct as well.
It is a silly comparison. Sweden/Denmark/Finland use relatively little water because the get a lot of rain and do not need to irrigate their crops. In the American West, nothing grows without irrigation. So of course we use more water.
Ajit Pai was appointed FCC chairman by Trump. The main "liberal vs conservative" issue that the FCC deals with is network neutrality, where Pai is firmly on the conservative side (anti-NN and pro free-market-for-monopolists).
Slashdot Mirror
people are not going to stop working
Not true. There have been many UBI pilot programs and they all found that some people stopped working. Other people worked fewer hours. Even more common was that two-earner households became one-earner households. Women with young children are the most likely to drop out of the labor force.
The V/STOL Marine version of the F-35 is completely separate from the Air Force and Navy versions.
Yet the ability to create a V/STOL version required compromises in the airframe, engine placement, and many other areas of the base design, that weaken all the versions. Likewise, the Navy's need for an airframe that can handle steam catapult launches and arresting cable landings, means that the Air Force is getting a heavier airframe than they need, resulting in a slower plane with a reduced range.
If they had been able to dismiss it successfully, would that have set a legal precedent?
It would have set precedent within this court's jurisdiction, which would have had a powerful impact, since it encompasses Silicon Valley, San Francisco, and all of coastal California from Monterey to the Oregon border.
It would not have set binding precedent in other jurisdictions, but other courts would still tend to tilt toward an established ruling.
TL;DR: If it had gone the other way, it would have been really bad.
No, it showed the guy ask him and he said yes.
It also shows a guy asking Francine, and she said yes.
Anything else is adding something that isn't in the cartoon.
That is sort of the point. The cartoon is totally unclear about what is "entrapment" and what is not. I presents two situations that that are nearly indistinguishable, and labels one as OBVIOUS entrapment, and the other as obviously NOT entrapment, yet doesn't explain what makes the two situations different. Saying that it is "Francine changed her mind" or "Grayson didn't hesitate" may be what the cartoonist intended, but other people in this thread thought the difference was something totally different, such as the "life and death" nature of the requests.
In my opinion, and the opinion of my attorney co-worker, they were both entrapped, and for the exact same reasons.
Like the F-35.
But with the F-35, it is the Marines, not the USAF, that are ruining it.
The V/STOL capability has required a lot of compromises in other capabilities.
Nope. Whether you count homicide rate or total homicides, USA wins.
Not when you consider all of Europe. Russia has a murder rate about twice that of America. Ukraine also a higher murder rate. When you look at the entire continent, Europe "wins".
I think the difference is that Francine did say 'no'.
The Grayson example did NOT say he agreed on the first request. If "agreeing immediately" is such a critical distinction, shouldn't that have been mentioned?
It seems to me that the critical difference is that Francine is a "nice" white girl, while Grayson is a "bad" person that hangs out on the street, and is probably a shifty minority. So that makes his entrapment okay.
The difference was the life or death circumstances.
What if Grayson needed money to pay for his mom's cancer treatment? Then would his case not be entrapment either?
We don't usually label somebody as mad who hasn't gone off the deep end.
We often label people as mad because they stick to their principles and refuse to compromise.
I have dealt with RMS many times, I don't care for him much as a person, and certainly wouldn't want him as a co-worker or roommate. But I admire his perseverance, consistency, and integrity.
I meant catch up in other ways. Sorry if that was unclear.
Okay, but I don't think there is any catching up to do. I felt like my military experience gave me a head start. When I later went to college, I had a much deeper and more mature perspective. To other students in history class, the places mentioned were just names on a map. But I had been there. I had a better understanding of the world, I had learned to speak some Japanese and Tagalog, and even more Mandarin (and eventually married a Chinese girl), and that opened a lot of opportunities in business and high-tech, especially as so much of the world's economy has shifted to Asia.
If you want to pay higher taxes to subsidize the mortgage on my McMansion in San Jose, I am not going to refuse the money, but I certainly don't need it, and veterans in general don't need it anymore than anyone else.
I imagine the pay isn't as good as in the private sector
You imagine wrong. For an 18 year old high school graduate, the pay is pretty good. When you add in basic necessities that are provided for free (food, housing, ammunition), it is a pretty good deal
... and volunteering is more noble than otherwise.
My reasons for joining had nothing to do with being "noble" or "serving my country" or any of that crap. It was a testosterone driven desire for adventure. I wanted to jump out of airplanes, ride in helicopters, and go see the world (Yes, I did all of those things as a Marine).
Perhaps some effort should be spent ensuring active duty personnel and veterans are offered opportunities ...
Veterans benefits, like any other entitlement, will always be twisted toward those that can organize, manipulate the system, and contribute to politicians, ... in other words successful people that don't really need the benefits.
Giving you some opportunity to catch up with the rest of us seems reasonable.
Except that we don't need to "catch up". According to the DOL, veterans are doing better than average in median income.
Europe has even stronger gun laws and almost no murders compared to the US.
Europe actually has MORE murders than America.
I think you meant to say Western Europe, or the European Union.
Even in the EU, the murder rate is about 40% of America's, which is not "almost no murders".
The benefits are a lure to get people in.
I wonder how effective that is. I enlisted in the Marines on my 18th birthday, and I had never heard of any benefits (and in general, had no idea what I was signing up for). Maybe the more brain-oriented branches (AF, Navy) are different, but I never heard any Marine say he enlisted to pay for college, or to get a home loan.
Where's the recognition for the police or firefighters or others who clearly face far more danger
Neither policing nor firefighting is particularly dangerous. Farmers, truck drivers, and retail clerks are all more likely to die or be injured on the job.
The most common reason that police die on the job is traffic accidents. The second most common reason is suicide.
Over a 30 year career, this is the number of times that most police officers fire their weapon in action: 0.
Being a cop in real life is not like it is on TV.
Better means to spend tax money than waste it on a border wall or more nukes!
Spending programs can not be justified just by pointing out other spending that is even stupider.
There are a good number of defence technology companies who will consider veterans.
When I left the military, my first coding job was with a defense company. They hired vets for several reasons:
1. I already had a security clearance.
2. I knew military lingo and acronyms.
3. When interacting with our military clients, I knew that colonels and generals don't like to be addressed as "dude".
Apparently your co-worker didn't read far enough down the page:
She went to law school, so I don't think she needs to read a webcomic to understand the law.
Sorry, Grayson. They can ask all they want. All you had to say was No.
Yet the example given that IS entrapment (Francine), is the same situation. She is asked, and refuses. She is asked again, and agrees to break the law. All she had to say was "No". The only difference between Francine and Grayson is that Francine is described as "nice".
The school should get fully paid only after the student completes the course, gets a job, and is employed for six months. That will increase their incentive to work with local employers, teach skills that are actually in demand, and help with job placement. It will decrease their incentive to enroll people that clearly can't do the work.
There is zero reason to give them anything but their last paycheck on the way out the door.
As a veteran, I pretty much agree with this. The military is 100% volunteer, and the pay is pretty good. Of course we need to take care of people that were wounded or disabled in the line of duty, but for everyone else, the handouts and entitlements are excessive. The benefits are also heavily skewed toward those that need them the least. I used a VA loan to buy a house in San Jose, one of the most expensive housing markets in the world, and over the life of the loan I will get about $200k in taxpayer funded subsidies, which I am happy to accept but certainly don't "need". Yet many veterans living in trailer parks don't have the ability or knowledge to benefit from the same program.
In many ways, veterans are just another special interest group, with a huge voting block to back them up. It is difficult for politicians to resist their demands because they don't want attack ads claiming they "don't care about vets".
The end justifies the means is a rather dangerous attitude.
Especially since it isn't clear that the means leads to the end. The presumption is that viewing child porn leads to violence against children. There is very little evidence to support that hypothesis, and quite a bit more that contradicts it. Over the last 20 years, access to porn has skyrocketed because of the Internet, but sexual violence has gone down by 55%. Perhaps mastrubating to porn functions as an alternative to "real" sex.
The argument that child porn hurts children during its creation is bogus. This is true because of the illegality. If it was legal, and regulated, it could be created with EFX that avoided the use of actual children, so the harm would go down.
Other countries have taken a more enlightened approach. In Japan, pedophiles can buy child sex dolls that appear to reduce harm. Yet those dolls are illegal in most other countries, including the US and Canada. It is hard to justify that by claiming that it "helps children".
I always refer to this when people spout off about entrapment. It doesn't get any more clear than this.
One of my co-workers has a law degree. I showed her your link. According to her, the second example (Grayson) is pretty clearly entrapment. The guy was not predisposed to commit a crime until the police created the opportunity and enticed him into it.
the guy wanted to tow it from the Arctic.
Bad idea. Arctic glaciers hive off from land glaciers and are irregular in shape. As they move through warm water and melt, they can become unstable, and roll over. Antarctic glaciers tend to be flat and stable. They also tend to be much bigger. Of course the route to the Persian Gulf is much more direct as well.
It is a silly comparison. Sweden/Denmark/Finland use relatively little water because the get a lot of rain and do not need to irrigate their crops. In the American West, nothing grows without irrigation. So of course we use more water.
The meaning is only clear from the context. If it is about the context, that it is not about "the word".
Disclaimer: I have four hens, but no cock.
Ajit Pai was appointed FCC chairman by Trump. The main "liberal vs conservative" issue that the FCC deals with is network neutrality, where Pai is firmly on the conservative side (anti-NN and pro free-market-for-monopolists).