Rules against harmful behavior are good, because they limit harmful behavior. Rules about how to play add stress, anger, and rebelliousness. This isn't especially complicated, and the headline makes perfect sense.
I mean, anarchists are going to believe their dumb philosophy regardless of your pedantic correction of a headline. You haven't won anyone over to the "some rules are good" land.
Unfortunately, "lying to congress" has some protection from that kind of punishment to prevent congress from using congressional inquiry as a lazy version of a bill of attainder.
No, not really. The bill of rights(the first amendments to the constitution) were mostly about the rights they imagined everyone deserved, but not specifically about what people deserved vis-a-vis justice. The vast majority of the document outlines how the government works.
I'm pretty sure you can say the fleeing to foreign countries part is from the chilling effects. If you're going to jail for leaking anything, you might as well use less judgement, leak everything, and get away.
And why are you arguing against letting new people become the people of Detroit? I still don't see what you're thinking will actually make things better about a "do nothing" strategy.
It's addressable but that's not the same as fixable*. Human problems aren't going away.
*this claim is applicable to current tech levels, and social mores. It's possible to perceive a world where you can fix everything, a la star trek. I'm not arguing hypotheticals.
I'd like to raise the question, however, of whether what people deserve should play into decisions of justice. Our concern shouldn't be for exacting Karma, but preventing harm, through a combination of deterrence and treatment, to the greatest measurable effect.
To that end, a pardon is still called for, just not because he deserves it, just to prevent chilling effect on whistle-blowers.
Because the people left in Detroit are trapped in a cycle of poverty, mostly with no real prospects due to lack of education(or they'd have moved out to someplace that would pay for their skills)? Every city has that problem, it's just usually bolstered by a more robust economy to help pull people out. The lack of employable people keeps employers away. The lack of employers keeps people from training for jobs they could have. And all that remains is a sense of desperation and crime.
The neoclassical position is that these problems fix themselves, and I think it's evidentially untrue(given, as I said, the last couple decades). The other really really long term solution(that I can see) is to let things get so bad and deteriorated that Detroit can start over from a small-town situation, but that's still decades of suffering like things are at least.
So we have a broken patent system with thousands of broken abusive nodes(companies with dumb patents), and millions of broken abusive edges(suing each other).
But good news, everyone! We removed one edge from the graph, and everything's better now. We're treating the symptoms and not the disease.
There are hundreds to thousands of real, super destructive tornadoes each year, I don't get why a particularly weak one is of note. We didn't even get a "scientists baffled" tagline.
Sadly, whatever it is is blocked where I am. The first guess I'd level out the gate is that it's an extension of "scientific racism" wherein "racial traits" are determined at a broad-based statistical level, and used for inferences about individuals in a way that only justifies biases and doesn't really inform.
Actually, reading up on it, it bizarrely comes from the 5th amendment, according to the supreme court. A jury finds you not guilty for any reason, you can't be retried because of double jeopardy. Even if the jury's reasoning is completely specious, courts can't ever overturn it if it's "Not guilty"
Slashdot Mirror
Rules against harmful behavior are good, because they limit harmful behavior. Rules about how to play add stress, anger, and rebelliousness. This isn't especially complicated, and the headline makes perfect sense.
I mean, anarchists are going to believe their dumb philosophy regardless of your pedantic correction of a headline. You haven't won anyone over to the "some rules are good" land.
Unfortunately, "lying to congress" has some protection from that kind of punishment to prevent congress from using congressional inquiry as a lazy version of a bill of attainder.
Usually no, but libraries aren't most hackerspaces, so who knows.
Maybe 15 years ago that was true. The wind shear hypothesis, as measured by doppler radar has been pretty well validated.
The beginning of the end?
Well, if you accept the premise that bitcoin's value is predominantly in libertarian imagination of circumventing laws, it is, maybe.
Also, Gandhi didn't say it. Credited to him because the person who did say it didn't win much of anything.
No, not really. The bill of rights(the first amendments to the constitution) were mostly about the rights they imagined everyone deserved, but not specifically about what people deserved vis-a-vis justice. The vast majority of the document outlines how the government works.
You wouldn't leak a care, would you?
"We" being the world as a whole, yes.
I'm pretty sure you can say the fleeing to foreign countries part is from the chilling effects. If you're going to jail for leaking anything, you might as well use less judgement, leak everything, and get away.
And why are you arguing against letting new people become the people of Detroit? I still don't see what you're thinking will actually make things better about a "do nothing" strategy.
It's addressable but that's not the same as fixable*. Human problems aren't going away.
*this claim is applicable to current tech levels, and social mores. It's possible to perceive a world where you can fix everything, a la star trek. I'm not arguing hypotheticals.
And you think being run down and desperate is going to make them less corrupt?
I'd like to raise the question, however, of whether what people deserve should play into decisions of justice. Our concern shouldn't be for exacting Karma, but preventing harm, through a combination of deterrence and treatment, to the greatest measurable effect.
To that end, a pardon is still called for, just not because he deserves it, just to prevent chilling effect on whistle-blowers.
I'd remind you that that is the ethical position of everyone who is actually a pacifist. Some belief systems come to that conclusion.
My case: the root issue isn't fixable.
Because the people left in Detroit are trapped in a cycle of poverty, mostly with no real prospects due to lack of education(or they'd have moved out to someplace that would pay for their skills)? Every city has that problem, it's just usually bolstered by a more robust economy to help pull people out. The lack of employable people keeps employers away. The lack of employers keeps people from training for jobs they could have. And all that remains is a sense of desperation and crime.
The neoclassical position is that these problems fix themselves, and I think it's evidentially untrue(given, as I said, the last couple decades). The other really really long term solution(that I can see) is to let things get so bad and deteriorated that Detroit can start over from a small-town situation, but that's still decades of suffering like things are at least.
So we have a broken patent system with thousands of broken abusive nodes(companies with dumb patents), and millions of broken abusive edges(suing each other).
But good news, everyone! We removed one edge from the graph, and everything's better now. We're treating the symptoms and not the disease.
I think you've had enough decades of "fewer people=fewer problems" as an attempt to improve things.
There are hundreds to thousands of real, super destructive tornadoes each year, I don't get why a particularly weak one is of note. We didn't even get a "scientists baffled" tagline.
Sadly, whatever it is is blocked where I am. The first guess I'd level out the gate is that it's an extension of "scientific racism" wherein "racial traits" are determined at a broad-based statistical level, and used for inferences about individuals in a way that only justifies biases and doesn't really inform.
Is that what it was?
But can you speak Korean?
Actually, reading up on it, it bizarrely comes from the 5th amendment, according to the supreme court. A jury finds you not guilty for any reason, you can't be retried because of double jeopardy. Even if the jury's reasoning is completely specious, courts can't ever overturn it if it's "Not guilty"
Good on anti-trust enforcement.
Pretty damn stupid on fan-death enforcement.
I believe "the fuck" is that the GGGP called it out as specifically libertarian. So clearly your name suits you as you clearly cannot.
Where specifically is a word that has come to mean "among other things".