Unfortunately for the artist, even through he has been de-arrested, he now probably no longer qualifies for the visa waiver programme for entry to the USA
So a win-win situation then? He can no longer be forced by his kids to go to Disneyland.
It's the correct legal term in the UK, although it's generally used against people who illegally feed off an existing supply to power high power lamps for growing cannabis.
It's like arresting someone for resisting arrest without having an original reason to arrest that person.
If you're stupid enough to assault a police officer, do you really think you should get away with it because the original arrest was a mistake?
If I think you have insulted me and I respond by stabbing you through the eye with a kebab skewer, it's irrelevant whether I misheard your remark in the first place and you were just asking me to pass the ketchup.
Why are people banned by law from doing things at their own risk?
I have no doubt that if this bloke had somehow fried his iphone by using the electricity socket he would have been suing the train company for not putting a big enough "not for use by the public" sticker on it.
"but social spending by government does and benefits everyone"... You actually believe that? See, thats the part conservatives don't believe. We don't believe that the wisdom, or effectiveness, of the collective is better.
The problem is that a collective decision will by definition favour the majority over the individual. so if you're currently a billionaire paying no tax, of course you're going to think that paying tax to fund poor people's hospitals and schools is a bad thing.
The issue with the US in particular is that everyone sees themselves as potential billionaires, and thuerefore doesn't even act in their own self interest (since only a tiny fraction of people will ever actually become that rich).
If they knew 95% of English majors ended up working for low-pay as waiters and waitresses maybe they'd think twice about maintaining that education path.
That's part of the 95% of statistics that are made up bullshit.
Here's a clue: just because you're an English major doesn't mean your only career option is being a literary critic or English professor.
Do you really think that all chemistry graduates work as research chemists, all French graduates as translators or all CS graduates as actual computer science researchers?
You could always just start saving money. Self insuring against unemployment downtime solves a lot of these problems.
Yeah, it makes you wonder why anyone ever bothered with unemployment benefits or social security in the first place. Everyone should just put aside enough of their wages to pay for themselves.
Working "under the table" on a cash in hand basis is decidely NOT "common and well-accepted" and if you get caught doing it I have no sympathy when your tax authorities dump a ton of shit on your head.
The rest of us don't pay taxes for the fun of it. Tax evasion is a cowardly, anti-social and selfish crime.
If libertarians don't want to be constrained by laws, rules or civilised behaviour, the rest of us are entitled to protect ourselves from the consequences, just like with any other criminal.
Perhaps it should! What matter of reasoning is it that you don't like a behavior, and so others shouldn't be allowed to engage in said behavior? Before you know it, we'll live in homes we buy outright, but our neighbors will tell us what color to paint the door and what type of mailbox to install!
In a civilised society, you have laws preventing people from raping and murdering, for instance, and yes these restrict your freedom.
If society as a whole isn't allowed to have any influence whatsoever on business, then things like slavery and child prostitution would have to be legal. if you want that world, just remember there's nothing magically preventing you from being the slave or child.
"He does do a lot of experiments. A lot of them I don't fully understand, but I'm certain he's not making bombs," said the suspect's father, Allen Mason"
Oh? How are you so certain? You just said you don't know what he's doing. Ergo, you don't know what he's doing.
I know, I know... Slashdotters will all side with the "experimenter", because geek. But it sounds like the police are acting based on evidence, while the defense is acting based on blind faith. In such cases, I side with evidence.
I expect the father worked on the principle that since he hadn't heard any explosions from his son's room, therefore he could not have been making bombs. Simple, irrefutable logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately for the artist, even through he has been de-arrested, he now probably no longer qualifies for the visa waiver programme for entry to the USA
So a win-win situation then? He can no longer be forced by his kids to go to Disneyland.
It's the correct legal term in the UK, although it's generally used against people who illegally feed off an existing supply to power high power lamps for growing cannabis.
It's like arresting someone for resisting arrest without having an original reason to arrest that person.
If you're stupid enough to assault a police officer, do you really think you should get away with it because the original arrest was a mistake?
If I think you have insulted me and I respond by stabbing you through the eye with a kebab skewer, it's irrelevant whether I misheard your remark in the first place and you were just asking me to pass the ketchup.
Why are people banned by law from doing things at their own risk?
I have no doubt that if this bloke had somehow fried his iphone by using the electricity socket he would have been suing the train company for not putting a big enough "not for use by the public" sticker on it.
the police man was just enforcing the laws written by the legislature. He was just doing the job he was supposed to be doing.
So what you are essentially saying... is that he was "just following orders".
Too soon in the comments?
You forgot the *removes sunglasses* bit.
"but social spending by government does and benefits everyone"... You actually believe that? See, thats the part conservatives don't believe. We don't believe that the wisdom, or effectiveness, of the collective is better.
The problem is that a collective decision will by definition favour the majority over the individual. so if you're currently a billionaire paying no tax, of course you're going to think that paying tax to fund poor people's hospitals and schools is a bad thing.
The issue with the US in particular is that everyone sees themselves as potential billionaires, and thuerefore doesn't even act in their own self interest (since only a tiny fraction of people will ever actually become that rich).
Name recognition, and the fact that the other Republican candidates are even worse.
*cough* Donald Trump *cough*
I'm not from the US, but are you people crazy? I wouldn't let him run a McDonald's franchise, never mind the most powerful nation on Earth.
Ever heard of the Clintons? Better yet, the Kennedys?
In what way does criticising Republican nepotism imply that Democrat nepotism is a good thing?
If I'd invented this world-changing technology (and I was American) I'd just bugger off to Russia or China and tell Boeing to sue my hairy balls.
we don't currently have fusion working
We don't currently have economically viable, contained fusion reactors working.
Indeed, H-bombs have been proved to work.
this is simple enlightened self-interest, no morality required
Acting in your own self interest IS a moral system.
If they knew 95% of English majors ended up working for low-pay as waiters and waitresses maybe they'd think twice about maintaining that education path.
That's part of the 95% of statistics that are made up bullshit.
Here's a clue: just because you're an English major doesn't mean your only career option is being a literary critic or English professor.
Do you really think that all chemistry graduates work as research chemists, all French graduates as translators or all CS graduates as actual computer science researchers?
You could always just start saving money. Self insuring against unemployment downtime solves a lot of these problems.
Yeah, it makes you wonder why anyone ever bothered with unemployment benefits or social security in the first place. Everyone should just put aside enough of their wages to pay for themselves.
It's so simple when you put it like that.
Stuff that matter? This is an article about some academic excercise in employment law?
You could write a story about how to make hair ribbons for kittens and it would get published here if it mentioned Uber.
US political discourse doen't really allow discussion of class, as it leads to awkward conversations involving Marx or Kropotkin.
People won't really NEED jobs. Just a gig every now and then
People have been saying this since the 1950s. As with personal flying cars, I'll believe it when I see it.
The rest of us don't pay taxes for the fun of it. Tax evasion is a cowardly, anti-social and selfish crime.
If libertarians don't want to be constrained by laws, rules or civilised behaviour, the rest of us are entitled to protect ourselves from the consequences, just like with any other criminal.
Perhaps it should! What matter of reasoning is it that you don't like a behavior, and so others shouldn't be allowed to engage in said behavior? Before you know it, we'll live in homes we buy outright, but our neighbors will tell us what color to paint the door and what type of mailbox to install!
In a civilised society, you have laws preventing people from raping and murdering, for instance, and yes these restrict your freedom.
If society as a whole isn't allowed to have any influence whatsoever on business, then things like slavery and child prostitution would have to be legal. if you want that world, just remember there's nothing magically preventing you from being the slave or child.
I like the idea of a basic income, but not to the extent of a living wage. I feel that would be a huge tax burden.
It probably depends on how you define a "living wage". If the basic income is not enough to exist on, it's pointless having it.
If you're a W-2 employee and earn vacation time, your employer will punish you for using it.
I think this is mainly a US problem.
I love this guy. So, by your logic, if you can see it and it looks like a bomb, it couldn't possibly be a bomb.
Got it.
It's probably a witch disguised as a bomb so we should burn it anyway.
If Thomas Edison were to live in our era, there wouldn't be aThomas Edison.
Indeed, scientists and inventors are a lot more ethical these days.
"He does do a lot of experiments. A lot of them I don't fully understand, but I'm certain he's not making bombs," said the suspect's father, Allen Mason" Oh? How are you so certain? You just said you don't know what he's doing. Ergo, you don't know what he's doing. I know, I know... Slashdotters will all side with the "experimenter", because geek. But it sounds like the police are acting based on evidence, while the defense is acting based on blind faith. In such cases, I side with evidence.
I expect the father worked on the principle that since he hadn't heard any explosions from his son's room, therefore he could not have been making bombs. Simple, irrefutable logic.