Would strong AI prioritize measures to diminish global warming and work toward getting everyone employed instead of making a select few very rich? Because humans have shown themselves to be unequal to those tasks.
I researched a bit and discovered the court case referenced in the article you linked does not appear to be based on American jurisprudence.
I further discovered that the child pornography definition in New York v. Ferber allowed the government to restrict speech that involved depictions of children in sexual acts. The Child Pornography Prevention Law of 1996 added two definitions of child pornography, both of which required sexually explicit conduct. No case I have come across has held that display of one's breasts are sexually explicit conduct. On the other hand, forty-six states and DC have laws on the books which allow women to breast feed in public. Lots of evidence that breasts aren't sexually explicit and no evidence against it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... http://www.ncsl.org/research/h...
Maroney's pictures have been described in some detail by people with similar questions as to their legality. They aren't child pornography. The shots are just of her breasts. She isn't simulating sex, she isn't masturbating off-camera (from what you can tell, apparently), I don't think she's even touching her own breasts.
The lawyers just tried to scare people. If I had her pictures, I would share them on principle alone. As it stands, everyone should be writing to the bar association where the lawyers have membership to register and ethics complaint.
Huh. This seems like a comment on what I said, but it doesn't actually dispute anything.
Honeywell produced and Boeing accepted a device that experiences interference when placed in the environment where it is intended to be used, right? Yeah, that's some crazy alternate universe worldview I've got.
"some airlines are balking, since the problem has never been seen in operation, that the order presents 'a high, and unnecessary, financial burden on operators'."
Yeah, it sure sucks that you're involved in an industry where hardening against air surveillance and weather radar are a pre-requisite, and you decided to buy off-spec from what I imagine was the lowest bidder.
That would probably be illegal in a bunch of contexts on the basis of overly broad seizure (effectively a so-called 'general warrant'). And then there's the statute of limitations. What you propose would be a serious problem for people that have committed crimes like rape or murder, but fuck those people....then again, if the cops were smart they'd seize encrypted images from all suspects on the off chance that one of them is the killer and that they would be able to decrypt at some point in the future. That could be the new DNA evidence for solving cold case files.
So Wheeler googled "ISP outrage", clicked the "News" tab, and had an intern write a feel-good do-nothing speech about the Comcast outrage?
If it were anyone we could at least momentarily pretend that this was an opening salvo in some course of action that would increase incentives to switch by doing something to promote competition to act against the disincentives Comcast forces on the consumer.
No, no, this is all about draining the political pressure that news story like the Comcast outrage foment. Its about constituents having the illusion of progress and/or representatives being able to tell their constituents that Chairman Wheeler, notable industry shill, is on the case.
Drugs would probably be a lot safer if people didn't have to worry about SWAT kicking in the door and tossing a couple flashbangs into your infant's crib.
"The images clearly showed a golden three-headed space dragon emerge from the cloud of debris. The eerie, high-pitched laughter of an alien demon filled the NASA command center before a bolt of gold space-lightning took out the Hubble telescope."
Yeah, when you're arguing for a drug that effectively adds another abuse risk to society at large, maybe you want to cite more than three people who benefit from it? Does anyone with liver failure need this drug? About how many people suffer from recognizable chronic pain and liver failure together?
Congress really needs to get hands-on with educational standards. There's a stronger commerce interest in all states producing only their fair share of idiots than in most of the crap Congress has regulated through the Commerce Clause.
Really wish they'd do a study comparing college performance in people that weren't taught evolution versus those that were. If nothing else, the non-evo's probably have to spend more time in otherwise optional science classes to catch up. That assumes a pattern of educational control that hasn't completely retarded their ability to think critically, of course.
Everyone behind these standards changes, every self-righteous blowhard and bigoted soccer mom, need to have their names inscribed on a wall somewhere, so their great great grandchildren can feel shame.
In many states moving a child with shared custody requires the okay from the court.
As for needing a man's permission to abort, yeah. The woman's the one whose body is being demolished by a fetus, and preventing her from aborting it effectively means the man has control over her actions. It would probably be another matter if the abortion itself was for some reason illegal, though.
So men, alas, must continue to not knock up women they think will go crazy and abort the fetus.
They probably do. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the law, but visitation rights seem like an obvious consequence of compliance in cases that do not involve abuse.
Men absolutely deserve the right to completely disclaim parental rights.
Absolutely not. They created a life, they have a duty to it by default... that's the obvious and honorable and, in most cases, statutory reality. A child should not suffer because half of the reason it exists cannot be bothered to pay child support.
You have a Biblical view of child support, and should be ashamed for suggesting it in a modern age.
There are compelling policy reasons for this, though. Ensuring a mother is not forced or otherwise compelled to waive a father's duty to their child through coercion is pretty important.
That said, there should be a process for validating non-compliant agreements which a judge agrees was not obtained through coercion or against a child's best interest (possibly upon contingent of the child being formally adopted by the non-birthing member of a same-sex couple). Whether it will get addressed depends on the competency of the govt agency currently twisting the law against its intended purpose, and how attached they are to this loophole (as to whether they can oppose a legislative initiative to build in post-host verification of non-compliant contracting away of parental rights and obligations).
"You used an Uncensored search engine on the following dates xxxxxxxx. You are an enemy of the party. You are going to prisoner."
Yeah, I can see this being a long con by the party to get people to distrust or fear exploiting holes in the firewall. I expect it would be easy to detect the traffic in question if they were set up to look for it before the 'breach' even occurred...
Repost? Stupid mobile site...
In this case, the law was blocks because going through the process of opting out of contraceptive coverage for a group of nuns was against their religion. The nuns essentially claimed they could not comply with the government's view of due process. This due process seems well within recognized limits to the church-state separation. I doubt it will be upheld. If the argument is that your religion compels you to not do paperwork, you're probably being ridiculous.
And all these Sebilius cases represent a pretty terribad slippery slope. The next logical exception for religious institutions could be for their health coverage to not cover pregnant single mothers, because the church views pregnant single mothers as amoral.
The whole thing sounds like a heap of administrative weight that will just drive health costs up for everyone. Individual members of a church pay sales tax, which can be theoretically funneled into state contraceptive programs. Religious institutions that pay taxes may have their taxes put to similar use. Since SCOTUS has already decided the Individual Mandate is a tax, the compulsory terms of health insurance should/could be regarded in the same way.
If this is allowed to stand, as a cultural Christian with a fierce hatred of the way health insurance was administered prior to the ACA (and who is currently not impressed with the progress of implementing the ACA), I hope that there is an opt-out fee that is equal to or greater than the fee for contraceptive coverage.
Our job is to tell you what you can't do. Your job is to be effective despite this. If you don't have the imagination to do your job without meticulously raping the document you swore to uphold, maybe it's time to let someone else have the chance to do things right.
Also, feel free to take a swan dive off a building.
Regards,
The American People,
CC: the rest of the world.
There's a scene at the end where everyone blinks into existence, and then Mjolnir zooms by and Dennings chirps out "Mjolnir!" like she was talking to Scooby Doo or some other cartoon mascot. Low point of the film.
I wish they had explained the change in Mjolnir's behavior, too. In Avengers, it blasts through multiple levels of helicarrier to get into Thor's hand just in time for him to knock the shit out of the Hulk. Here it's going around corners and shit, fast enough to be effective, slow enough so Dennings can make it into a cartoon mascot.
Slashdot Mirror
Do they not make blank media for whatever the Wii-U uses? Because piracy in Brazil is prolific. Getting the hardware is the main barrier to entry.
This isn't necessarily a 5th Amendment issue for the manufacturers who have only a tangential connection to the case itself.
People can't assert the constitutional rights of others.
But yeah, this law seems like bullshit. I hope the legal response is robust and successful.
Would strong AI prioritize measures to diminish global warming and work toward getting everyone employed instead of making a select few very rich? Because humans have shown themselves to be unequal to those tasks.
So you can honestly answer "no" to whatever dumbass question they ask you.
I researched a bit and discovered the court case referenced in the article you linked does not appear to be based on American jurisprudence.
I further discovered that the child pornography definition in New York v. Ferber allowed the government to restrict speech that involved depictions of children in sexual acts. The Child Pornography Prevention Law of 1996 added two definitions of child pornography, both of which required sexually explicit conduct. No case I have come across has held that display of one's breasts are sexually explicit conduct. On the other hand, forty-six states and DC have laws on the books which allow women to breast feed in public. Lots of evidence that breasts aren't sexually explicit and no evidence against it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
http://www.ncsl.org/research/h...
Your concern is noted but baseless.
You know that the fact that there is a SCOTUS case means that the interpretation of the law has changed, right?
Maroney's pictures have been described in some detail by people with similar questions as to their legality. They aren't child pornography. The shots are just of her breasts. She isn't simulating sex, she isn't masturbating off-camera (from what you can tell, apparently), I don't think she's even touching her own breasts.
The lawyers just tried to scare people. If I had her pictures, I would share them on principle alone. As it stands, everyone should be writing to the bar association where the lawyers have membership to register and ethics complaint.
Huh. This seems like a comment on what I said, but it doesn't actually dispute anything.
Honeywell produced and Boeing accepted a device that experiences interference when placed in the environment where it is intended to be used, right? Yeah, that's some crazy alternate universe worldview I've got.
"some airlines are balking, since the problem has never been seen in operation, that the order presents 'a high, and unnecessary, financial burden on operators'."
Yeah, it sure sucks that you're involved in an industry where hardening against air surveillance and weather radar are a pre-requisite, and you decided to buy off-spec from what I imagine was the lowest bidder.
That would probably be illegal in a bunch of contexts on the basis of overly broad seizure (effectively a so-called 'general warrant'). And then there's the statute of limitations. What you propose would be a serious problem for people that have committed crimes like rape or murder, but fuck those people. ...then again, if the cops were smart they'd seize encrypted images from all suspects on the off chance that one of them is the killer and that they would be able to decrypt at some point in the future. That could be the new DNA evidence for solving cold case files.
So Wheeler googled "ISP outrage", clicked the "News" tab, and had an intern write a feel-good do-nothing speech about the Comcast outrage?
If it were anyone we could at least momentarily pretend that this was an opening salvo in some course of action that would increase incentives to switch by doing something to promote competition to act against the disincentives Comcast forces on the consumer.
No, no, this is all about draining the political pressure that news story like the Comcast outrage foment. Its about constituents having the illusion of progress and/or representatives being able to tell their constituents that Chairman Wheeler, notable industry shill, is on the case.
Drugs would probably be a lot safer if people didn't have to worry about SWAT kicking in the door and tossing a couple flashbangs into your infant's crib.
"The images clearly showed a golden three-headed space dragon emerge from the cloud of debris. The eerie, high-pitched laughter of an alien demon filled the NASA command center before a bolt of gold space-lightning took out the Hubble telescope."
Yeah, when you're arguing for a drug that effectively adds another abuse risk to society at large, maybe you want to cite more than three people who benefit from it? Does anyone with liver failure need this drug? About how many people suffer from recognizable chronic pain and liver failure together?
Congress really needs to get hands-on with educational standards. There's a stronger commerce interest in all states producing only their fair share of idiots than in most of the crap Congress has regulated through the Commerce Clause. Really wish they'd do a study comparing college performance in people that weren't taught evolution versus those that were. If nothing else, the non-evo's probably have to spend more time in otherwise optional science classes to catch up. That assumes a pattern of educational control that hasn't completely retarded their ability to think critically, of course. Everyone behind these standards changes, every self-righteous blowhard and bigoted soccer mom, need to have their names inscribed on a wall somewhere, so their great great grandchildren can feel shame.
In many states moving a child with shared custody requires the okay from the court. As for needing a man's permission to abort, yeah. The woman's the one whose body is being demolished by a fetus, and preventing her from aborting it effectively means the man has control over her actions. It would probably be another matter if the abortion itself was for some reason illegal, though. So men, alas, must continue to not knock up women they think will go crazy and abort the fetus.
They probably do. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the law, but visitation rights seem like an obvious consequence of compliance in cases that do not involve abuse.
Men absolutely deserve the right to completely disclaim parental rights. Absolutely not. They created a life, they have a duty to it by default... that's the obvious and honorable and, in most cases, statutory reality. A child should not suffer because half of the reason it exists cannot be bothered to pay child support. You have a Biblical view of child support, and should be ashamed for suggesting it in a modern age.
There are compelling policy reasons for this, though. Ensuring a mother is not forced or otherwise compelled to waive a father's duty to their child through coercion is pretty important. That said, there should be a process for validating non-compliant agreements which a judge agrees was not obtained through coercion or against a child's best interest (possibly upon contingent of the child being formally adopted by the non-birthing member of a same-sex couple). Whether it will get addressed depends on the competency of the govt agency currently twisting the law against its intended purpose, and how attached they are to this loophole (as to whether they can oppose a legislative initiative to build in post-host verification of non-compliant contracting away of parental rights and obligations).
"You used an Uncensored search engine on the following dates xxxxxxxx. You are an enemy of the party. You are going to prisoner." Yeah, I can see this being a long con by the party to get people to distrust or fear exploiting holes in the firewall. I expect it would be easy to detect the traffic in question if they were set up to look for it before the 'breach' even occurred...
Maximum rule, minimal equitability.
Repost? Stupid mobile site... In this case, the law was blocks because going through the process of opting out of contraceptive coverage for a group of nuns was against their religion. The nuns essentially claimed they could not comply with the government's view of due process. This due process seems well within recognized limits to the church-state separation. I doubt it will be upheld. If the argument is that your religion compels you to not do paperwork, you're probably being ridiculous. And all these Sebilius cases represent a pretty terribad slippery slope. The next logical exception for religious institutions could be for their health coverage to not cover pregnant single mothers, because the church views pregnant single mothers as amoral. The whole thing sounds like a heap of administrative weight that will just drive health costs up for everyone. Individual members of a church pay sales tax, which can be theoretically funneled into state contraceptive programs. Religious institutions that pay taxes may have their taxes put to similar use. Since SCOTUS has already decided the Individual Mandate is a tax, the compulsory terms of health insurance should/could be regarded in the same way. If this is allowed to stand, as a cultural Christian with a fierce hatred of the way health insurance was administered prior to the ACA (and who is currently not impressed with the progress of implementing the ACA), I hope that there is an opt-out fee that is equal to or greater than the fee for contraceptive coverage.
Our job is to tell you what you can't do. Your job is to be effective despite this. If you don't have the imagination to do your job without meticulously raping the document you swore to uphold, maybe it's time to let someone else have the chance to do things right. Also, feel free to take a swan dive off a building. Regards, The American People, CC: the rest of the world.
Enhances the Scooby Doo comparison, but makes me feel a little better about that scene.
There's a scene at the end where everyone blinks into existence, and then Mjolnir zooms by and Dennings chirps out "Mjolnir!" like she was talking to Scooby Doo or some other cartoon mascot. Low point of the film. I wish they had explained the change in Mjolnir's behavior, too. In Avengers, it blasts through multiple levels of helicarrier to get into Thor's hand just in time for him to knock the shit out of the Hulk. Here it's going around corners and shit, fast enough to be effective, slow enough so Dennings can make it into a cartoon mascot.