This is a more reasonable direction to take, but part of the reason laws are so complex is because not every situation is the same. And you could have laws with a very broad scope with a lot left to judges to decide, that would harm one of the underlying principles of common law many people agree with, the equal protection provision.
If person A commits a given action, and person B does the exact same, you don't want the judge to have leeway to execute A and give B a month's probation. This means that laws have to be specific about different cases and their distinctions. Complexity arises naturally from that.
Basically, I'd need to see any proposed plan of simplification before I could ever agree to it. It's a nice idea though.
It troubles me that this was modded insightful and not funny. Do people really believe that advocates who understand the laws are an unnecessary part of the equation? I can't imagine the idea of being sued under a tort I didn't understand, and there being no one who could explain it to me, and help me defend my situation in court.
The premise of your post seems to be that de facto trusts are squashing innovation in the modern era. What resolution to this issue do you imagine is possible? Removing copyright from the equation doesn't seem like it would help. What would?
Since this was posted as AC, I'm wagering I won't get a response, but... what earlier comment? In some other thread? Is there some other conversation happening in some other dimension? That last one seems like it would work. If all conservatives had discussions partially existing on some higher plane us liberals are incapable of perceiving through some profound failure on our part, it would explain how they can simultaneously hold the air of being certain in their correctness, and simultaneously speaking what appears to be complete nonsense.
More seriously, what are you talking about? I really did reread the entire thread of discussion a couple of times to try and glean some sort of understanding as to how his comment might relate. Whatever point that post seems to be opposing is one I have never made in my life.
I can't even comprehend what this has to do with my post. Seriously. I can't seem to make a mental bridge here. The word "Republican" appears in both our posts, I guess?
Yeah, no. Grow up. Scientists don't go around blaming republicans for doing much of anything other than lying about science, and that's just the politically active scientists.
When you're talking about what's necessarily true, sure. But the vast majority of those uninsured can't afford it in the united states. The GP was making a reasonable simplification. This is not really a reason to invoke a pointless political debate.
A concept car cost millions, engineers and custom fabrication work do not come cheap. Ramping up production for a new model is in the hundreds of millions to billions area.
I don't disagree. I personally think that communicating openly is harmless. It's just not unprecedented and within the realm of the authority to prosecute. There's a difference between endorsing an action and feeling it wasn't a tremendous miscarriage of justice. If I were on the jury for that trial, I would have gone with a not-guilty verdict.
My personal opinion is different from I consider an acceptable range of opinions on the matter. It isn't nearly the scale of government endorsed barbarism that can and does happen, such as indefinite detention, torture, and use of military trials on civilians. All of those stand in direct opposition to freedom, and I recognize this as a lesser disagreement.
I would point out that England has long had it be illegal to engage in communications that are preliminary to serious crimes. There's no implicit assumption in the British legal system that communications are harmless.
2 Years seems a bit drastic, when a month or two would have been better for preventing polarization. As an American, of course, I find this antithetical to my values, but I don't have as much of a stake in British law.
A ton of ways. 1. Unemployment in software is in the realm of what is usually considered booming economy levels(below 5%). 2. Every person who actively has a job is contributing to the economy in terms of buying things, investing, etc. 3. Theoretically,(and I don't really buy this point myself), more (necessary) software means more efficiency in the economy, meaning more is made, meaning prices for consumers go down. 4. Better competition in the field means better work gets done(maybe?).
It's easy to see how getting high-skill employees into the US when we have the chance is valuable to our local economy.
The point of journals is the value of their reputation. A well respected scientific journal is useful because they've repeatedly put their name on the line publishing scientific papers, and when the vast majority of those papers are valid and well reviewed, you can have some hope of trusting an as yet unread paper. "Censorship" in the form of verification and peer review, is one of the driving mechanisms of science, because not all ideas are made equal.
It's not the dead trees that make journals valued, but the credibility they help maintain. Having well-respected scientists be widely opposed to your journal is a deadly circumstance, as trust is all you have.
Yeah, that's stupid. They are both luxury items, especially when new. Or maybe you think the 75% of the world that doesn't own a car isn't getting by at all.
I work with numerous H1-B coworkers. They are good people, on the whole and not deserving of contempt from just being foreign. On top of that, I am well payed in spite of whatever depressing effect they have.
What you're forgetting is that when you hire H1-B, you're bringing talent and skill into the U.S. and increasing the health of the U.S. economy. Moreover, they're paying the same rent/food/electricity/transportation/tax costs every other person living in the U.S. is too. The real risk H1-B poses to the U.S. is not "taking our jobs" as the very low unemployment in those fields indicates, but rather that we send these workers home after their visa expires, and lose all the knowledge they brought with them and gained during their employment.
It only "artificially" depresses wages if you consider their existence artificial. Personally, I'd be happier with a clear path to citizenship for H1-B workers.
That's a bald assertion there. By the very nature of a union, it must be public in order to gain members and perform actions like strikes. It's impossible to do that privately. Moreover it's against the (U.S) law to make a secret union. Now, from what reasoning could you possibly conclude they aren't public?
Bald assertions like this make you look bad, and harm your argument.
This is incorrect. You honestly think most people on slashdot are unemployed? They're mostly very well paid IT people and engineers with a dash of everything else. There is an extraordinary difference in the productivity of the average skilled American worker and the average unskilled Chinese worker.(unskilled Americans and skilled Chinese left out of the equation now). It is on the order of a hundred times as much. Pretending like a lack of technical skills is valueless is no way to address problems in an economy where unskilled and non-technically skilled people represent the vast majority of the unemployed. Your gloom-and-doom assertions have no basis in fact, and betray a bizarre Luddite attitude that seems contrary to the techy nature of slashdot.
Sounds like someone never had a philosophy of science course.
There are several ways to study in a manner that most scientists agree is scientific without using the controlled experiment(which is merely the best tool we have, not the only one.)
The underlying mechanic of science is hypothesis rejection by contrary empirical evidence. There are lots of less effective, but still functional, ways to approach this mechanic.
1. Empirical inductive testing: this is how planetary paths became understood. First you build a hypothesis like Newton's third law. Then you make a clear succinct prediction about what observations you could make in the future based on that law.(where you could see a given planet in the sky at a given time). If the data contradicts your prediction, then your hypothesis is rejected. Unless you honestly thing there were controlled experiments to establish the attraction of objects proportional to their mass in Newton's time. and 2. Data reapplication: Sometimes a hypothesis can be validated merely by taking large quantities of data collected for other reasons and treating deviations from your hypothesis's predictions as invalidation. This is done all the time in early medical research to identify possible approaches to treating diseases without needing human experimentation.
Details, in your face. Go take a philosophy of science class. This stuff is interesting, and you're doing yourself a disservice by not learning it directly from an expert. I don't care that you're probably out of school already, go take some continuing education.
There's no such thing as an anti-antibiotics bandwagon. Does not exist.
If you search for the phrase "ban antibiotics" you will ONLY find results for people opposed to agricultural antibiotic use on healthy animals. That's it.
There are enough stupid movements to hate without having to invent new ones.
But not the organization. Stalin was pretty sloppy, or maybe that's just a side effect of being in power longer. More loose threads start to be visible. Hard to say.
No, it didn't. At least Naziism, I don't know what Mussolini did as well. Hitler was an ardent supporter of mercantilism and believed in using government power to facilitate the maximizing of profits. He also believed in seizing assets from those he believed were unworthy, like Jewish businessmen. Those assets were then sold to companies that supported the Nazi party. It was a method for consolidating power within a group of elites. They did, however, trumpet their supposed socialism in poor neighborhoods hit hardest by the great depression(at least in the early thirties). It's hard to look at Naziism as anything other than the most well organized dickishness in human history.
Yep, bald sarcasm sure is funny. It sure doesn't need any context highlighting the problem, just being sarcastic puts opponents in their place straight out. Game, set, match.
Ok, gotta reply. Surname=Family name: Miyamoto. Given Name=Personal name: Shigeru
Shigeru Miyamoto is an Anglicization of his name, and you just corrected me without either A. Looking up his name for yourself and seeing the Japanese order being Miyamoto Shigeru or B. Understanding the word I used.
I wouldn't mind that, except somehow you got modded to +5 informative for an incorrect correction. Slashdot depresses me.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a more reasonable direction to take, but part of the reason laws are so complex is because not every situation is the same. And you could have laws with a very broad scope with a lot left to judges to decide, that would harm one of the underlying principles of common law many people agree with, the equal protection provision.
If person A commits a given action, and person B does the exact same, you don't want the judge to have leeway to execute A and give B a month's probation. This means that laws have to be specific about different cases and their distinctions. Complexity arises naturally from that.
Basically, I'd need to see any proposed plan of simplification before I could ever agree to it. It's a nice idea though.
It troubles me that this was modded insightful and not funny. Do people really believe that advocates who understand the laws are an unnecessary part of the equation? I can't imagine the idea of being sued under a tort I didn't understand, and there being no one who could explain it to me, and help me defend my situation in court.
The premise of your post seems to be that de facto trusts are squashing innovation in the modern era. What resolution to this issue do you imagine is possible? Removing copyright from the equation doesn't seem like it would help. What would?
Since this was posted as AC, I'm wagering I won't get a response, but... what earlier comment? In some other thread? Is there some other conversation happening in some other dimension? That last one seems like it would work. If all conservatives had discussions partially existing on some higher plane us liberals are incapable of perceiving through some profound failure on our part, it would explain how they can simultaneously hold the air of being certain in their correctness, and simultaneously speaking what appears to be complete nonsense.
More seriously, what are you talking about? I really did reread the entire thread of discussion a couple of times to try and glean some sort of understanding as to how his comment might relate. Whatever point that post seems to be opposing is one I have never made in my life.
I can't even comprehend what this has to do with my post. Seriously. I can't seem to make a mental bridge here. The word "Republican" appears in both our posts, I guess?
Please to be statement having more cogent.
Yeah, no. Grow up. Scientists don't go around blaming republicans for doing much of anything other than lying about science, and that's just the politically active scientists.
When you're talking about what's necessarily true, sure. But the vast majority of those uninsured can't afford it in the united states. The GP was making a reasonable simplification. This is not really a reason to invoke a pointless political debate.
Correction for C.
A concept car cost millions, engineers and custom fabrication work do not come cheap. Ramping up production for a new model is in the hundreds of millions to billions area.
I don't disagree. I personally think that communicating openly is harmless. It's just not unprecedented and within the realm of the authority to prosecute. There's a difference between endorsing an action and feeling it wasn't a tremendous miscarriage of justice. If I were on the jury for that trial, I would have gone with a not-guilty verdict.
My personal opinion is different from I consider an acceptable range of opinions on the matter. It isn't nearly the scale of government endorsed barbarism that can and does happen, such as indefinite detention, torture, and use of military trials on civilians. All of those stand in direct opposition to freedom, and I recognize this as a lesser disagreement.
I would point out that England has long had it be illegal to engage in communications that are preliminary to serious crimes. There's no implicit assumption in the British legal system that communications are harmless.
2 Years seems a bit drastic, when a month or two would have been better for preventing polarization. As an American, of course, I find this antithetical to my values, but I don't have as much of a stake in British law.
A ton of ways.
1. Unemployment in software is in the realm of what is usually considered booming economy levels(below 5%).
2. Every person who actively has a job is contributing to the economy in terms of buying things, investing, etc.
3. Theoretically,(and I don't really buy this point myself), more (necessary) software means more efficiency in the economy, meaning more is made, meaning prices for consumers go down.
4. Better competition in the field means better work gets done(maybe?).
It's easy to see how getting high-skill employees into the US when we have the chance is valuable to our local economy.
The point of journals is the value of their reputation. A well respected scientific journal is useful because they've repeatedly put their name on the line publishing scientific papers, and when the vast majority of those papers are valid and well reviewed, you can have some hope of trusting an as yet unread paper. "Censorship" in the form of verification and peer review, is one of the driving mechanisms of science, because not all ideas are made equal.
It's not the dead trees that make journals valued, but the credibility they help maintain. Having well-respected scientists be widely opposed to your journal is a deadly circumstance, as trust is all you have.
Yeah, that's stupid. They are both luxury items, especially when new. Or maybe you think the 75% of the world that doesn't own a car isn't getting by at all.
I work with numerous H1-B coworkers. They are good people, on the whole and not deserving of contempt from just being foreign. On top of that, I am well payed in spite of whatever depressing effect they have.
What you're forgetting is that when you hire H1-B, you're bringing talent and skill into the U.S. and increasing the health of the U.S. economy. Moreover, they're paying the same rent/food/electricity/transportation/tax costs every other person living in the U.S. is too. The real risk H1-B poses to the U.S. is not "taking our jobs" as the very low unemployment in those fields indicates, but rather that we send these workers home after their visa expires, and lose all the knowledge they brought with them and gained during their employment.
It only "artificially" depresses wages if you consider their existence artificial. Personally, I'd be happier with a clear path to citizenship for H1-B workers.
That's a bald assertion there. By the very nature of a union, it must be public in order to gain members and perform actions like strikes. It's impossible to do that privately. Moreover it's against the (U.S) law to make a secret union. Now, from what reasoning could you possibly conclude they aren't public?
Bald assertions like this make you look bad, and harm your argument.
This is incorrect. You honestly think most people on slashdot are unemployed? They're mostly very well paid IT people and engineers with a dash of everything else. There is an extraordinary difference in the productivity of the average skilled American worker and the average unskilled Chinese worker.(unskilled Americans and skilled Chinese left out of the equation now). It is on the order of a hundred times as much. Pretending like a lack of technical skills is valueless is no way to address problems in an economy where unskilled and non-technically skilled people represent the vast majority of the unemployed. Your gloom-and-doom assertions have no basis in fact, and betray a bizarre Luddite attitude that seems contrary to the techy nature of slashdot.
It's just weird.
I hate to break it to you, but those groups are all mutually exclusive.
My comment probably deserves to be modded flamebait, but it's still accurate to my observations of the world.
Sounds like someone never had a philosophy of science course.
There are several ways to study in a manner that most scientists agree is scientific without using the controlled experiment(which is merely the best tool we have, not the only one.)
The underlying mechanic of science is hypothesis rejection by contrary empirical evidence. There are lots of less effective, but still functional, ways to approach this mechanic.
1. Empirical inductive testing: this is how planetary paths became understood. First you build a hypothesis like Newton's third law. Then you make a clear succinct prediction about what observations you could make in the future based on that law.(where you could see a given planet in the sky at a given time). If the data contradicts your prediction, then your hypothesis is rejected. Unless you honestly thing there were controlled experiments to establish the attraction of objects proportional to their mass in Newton's time.
and
2. Data reapplication: Sometimes a hypothesis can be validated merely by taking large quantities of data collected for other reasons and treating deviations from your hypothesis's predictions as invalidation. This is done all the time in early medical research to identify possible approaches to treating diseases without needing human experimentation.
Details, in your face. Go take a philosophy of science class. This stuff is interesting, and you're doing yourself a disservice by not learning it directly from an expert. I don't care that you're probably out of school already, go take some continuing education.
There's no such thing as an anti-antibiotics bandwagon. Does not exist.
If you search for the phrase "ban antibiotics" you will ONLY find results for people opposed to agricultural antibiotic use on healthy animals. That's it.
There are enough stupid movements to hate without having to invent new ones.
Maybe we'll get lucky and the car will drive itself?
But not the organization. Stalin was pretty sloppy, or maybe that's just a side effect of being in power longer. More loose threads start to be visible. Hard to say.
No, it didn't. At least Naziism, I don't know what Mussolini did as well. Hitler was an ardent supporter of mercantilism and believed in using government power to facilitate the maximizing of profits. He also believed in seizing assets from those he believed were unworthy, like Jewish businessmen. Those assets were then sold to companies that supported the Nazi party. It was a method for consolidating power within a group of elites. They did, however, trumpet their supposed socialism in poor neighborhoods hit hardest by the great depression(at least in the early thirties). It's hard to look at Naziism as anything other than the most well organized dickishness in human history.
Yep, bald sarcasm sure is funny. It sure doesn't need any context highlighting the problem, just being sarcastic puts opponents in their place straight out. Game, set, match.
Just in case you were afraid of a little humanity being left in war.
Ok, gotta reply.
Surname=Family name: Miyamoto.
Given Name=Personal name: Shigeru
Shigeru Miyamoto is an Anglicization of his name, and you just corrected me without either
A. Looking up his name for yourself and seeing the Japanese order being Miyamoto Shigeru
or
B. Understanding the word I used.
I wouldn't mind that, except somehow you got modded to +5 informative for an incorrect correction. Slashdot depresses me.