Your refusal to give a corporation your money has the consequence of depriving you of the best available prices, and also imposing on you the burden of doing costly research before each and every single purchase to see what practices the often foreign manufacturer is engaged in. To say it costs nothing is dishonest. Any refusal to perform a transaction for anything except purely economic reasons has a cost.
Ultimately since you have no way of knowing who actually has manufactured any given product or the components of it, you'll just buy what's available, the same as everybody else.
Corporations exist as a legal fiction created by government. They have access to your money via tax incentives, grants, government contracts, and unfair business practices enabled and imposed by government.
The corporation is an extension of government. It is a deliberate way to shield the wealth from public accountability while giving peons like you the illusion of freedom.
When the richest 400 americans earn more than the bottom 150million americans, you think your paltry dollar counts for anything? Trying to boycott anyone is going to hurt you more than they.
Of course I'm sure your ISP has a TOS that states you can't be a service provider and you are buying service for personal use only.
Such a clause is not really enforceable. They can't demonstrate any harm if you violate it. At best they can discontinue the contract. contracts are about allowing both parties to protect themselves from harm. It is not about allowing parties to impose a restriction. Its especially not there simply to limit competition in the free market.
A packet is a packet is a packet. they are alleging to sell you bandwidth, so as long as you don't exceed what they claim to be selling you, they are not harmed.
I could be wrong but if I am, I'd like to see the court case where a customer was ordered to pay damages merely because they allowed someone else to access the internet.
Your neighbors and yourself generally were presented to one another as equals, and thus they gave you a certain degree of respect and expected the same in return. You both had a shared interested in the type of lifestyle that is possible in the community. On the other hand the new government watchers are invisible. They see you from a great distance and you don't see them at all. They have nothing to fear from you so they have no reason to treat you with respect. They are not your neighbors, they are strangers.
I don't need to have my actions monitored just in case 20 years from now I can be prosecuted for things I do now which are legal.
What guarantee do I have that no future government will ever decide to punish people retroactively for acts they committed before the act was illegal? i.e. blasphemy against private healthcare, saying bad things about the meat industry, about the church?
my neighbors aren't part of some vast system of control designed to outlast any individual human. they just want to live their lives in peace, and some day die. and thats all.
Government are self perpetuating systems. we should not simply assume government wont turn bad.
"But I do think bandwidth should be metered. Gasoline is metered. Diesel is metered. Electricity is metered. Water is metered. Phonecalls are metered (well mine are- 18c/minute). Why not megabytes?"
Gasoline runs out. It is a physical substance and non renewable. You can store it for the future and you can resell it. data doesn't run out, and it isn't scarce. Bandwidth is created by building capacity into the network. It doesn't cost less to use less bandwidth once the capacity is there. And if you pay a metered rate for local phone service you are being ripped off.
But apart from that, the ruling applied to data transmitted locally over a DSL link between the independent ISPs and their own customers. Bandwidth that is FIXED and directly proportionate to the number of customers. (each customer has their own separate DSL). Why should the incumbent, a beneficiary of a legacy government mandated monopoly status, get to charge for usage on those links when their own costs are fixed, and when the government has decided that such monopolies are no longer good for Canada and ordered the incumbents to make certain parts of their built-while-a-monopoly-network available to competition?
allowing the incumbents to change 85% of their own unregulated retail prices to competitors when the product doesn't even include internet access but merely a link between ISPs and their own customers (locally) is tantamount to allowing the monopolies to operate without any government regulation of prices at all.
These monopolies are the same companies that provide legacy cable TV, and old copper wire land line phones. They want to discourage use of the internet at any cost.
If it wasn't for taxpayers guaranteeing these monopolies protection in decades past, they never would have gotten as powerful as they now are, so it is perfectly fair for taxpayers via the government to regulate aspects of their market practices.
By that same logic, though, you can flush most of Einsteins work too. We do not posses, nor are we likely to posses in our lifetimes barring alien intervention, the technology to directly test and observe either the General or Special theories of relativity.
Well I guess then you must believe in alien intervention because its all happened already:
And it's extremely likely that, unless the aliens were non-aggressive and prone to study everything in-depth, they'd treat us similarly to the way we treat cattle - -namely, we're dumb animals unless someone's hungry, in which case we taste pretty good.
On the bright side, we have a high chance to be completelly unsuitable as food or at least quite toxic - assuming different chiralities for example. (and I'm not sure if "studying everything in-depth" would be a good thing...;) )
We can be ground up and used as fertilizer for the red weed.
The main reason they sterilize their probes is to get "cleaner" data and no risk of contamination of future probe readings. After all, one cell is all they need to find. Any false-positive will be a disaster that they'd never live down.
not to mention contaminating other components of the same probe.
at least the discovery that earth life flourished on a celestial body would be scientifically interesting. A space probe that did nothing but detect that it was self-contaminated prior to launch and can't provide useful data would be a total failure.
"they will be removed once they confirm there is no outstanding warrants or anything against you, that you have no criminal record and you were in fact acquitted"
What if you are arrested, but never charged? Does no acquittal mean the fingerprints stay on file?
The courts never ordered the police to destroy any fingerprints. The police merely told the courts that they do on request and described the reasons they would refuse. The courts said, well it seems that although the law is silent on that matter - it is in fact being applied in a sensible way, so there is nothing really to do here.
I'm sure if and when the police refused to destroy someones fingerprints it would need to go back to court. but I don't see why they would want to waste the time unless they had a good reason. i.e. if a convict tried to get their fingerprints destroyed, I'm sure the government would go to court to fight against that.
it seemed to be the sense that in general the state probably doesn't have unfettered rights to simply keep fingerprints forever without any limits. the question was not formally ruled on however because the crown did not try to assert such a right.
I merely wanted to point out that in some jurisdictions at least it is recognized that fingerprints have special value and the state doesn't just get to necessarily keep them forever on anybody that happens to be arrested.
It is exactly the same, if more invasive, as fingerprinting. You get arrested, you get fingerprinted. Period. It stays in the database forever.
I'm not sure how many people have tried to fight fingerprints, but there has obviously never been a successful constitutionality challenge against it. DNA is simply a more complete, and more invasive, fingerprint.
In canada it was challenged and as a result you can request to have your fingerprints removed by the police after you are acquitted and they will be removed once they confirm there is no outstanding warrants or anything against you, that you have no criminal record and you were in fact acquitted, and that you aren't a terrorist or something else like that.
this practice probably does not include any of the special national security databases that are secret and nobody knows about, but almost certainly exist.
Wrong. Felons are punished by being removed from society and contained, but when they are allowed to return to society we do NOT restore "all rights" to them.
And as far as I'm concerned that is an atrocity and a violation of the fundamental principles of justice.
The United States is founded on the principle that the state only exists by consent of the governed. How can any person deprived of their right to vote, be said to give consent?
And if they do not consent, then how can government wield any power over them that is not tyrannical?
How fitting that the right to bear arms. The right directly associated with preventing tyranny, is also denied (in violation of the constitution, and therefore without consent of the governed) to those who are deprived their right to vote.
It is all very well and good to keep dangerous felons locked up even if their punishment is over, and now you're simply holding them for the benefit of the public. But why draw the line at felons? Why not lock up the innocent and guilty alike? or anyone who is your political rival?
Once you accept that it is ok for the government to put people in cages (or deprive them of property) for reasons separate from punishment then there is no legal necessity to convict them of any crime in the first place. Simply declare that they must be "civilly committed" for the public safety, disregard any due process, any fair trial, any burden or proof and lock them up.
This is tyrannical. You can call it what you wish.
Additionally they may remain on probation for an extended period during which they have only a portion of their rights restored and a violation of this probation can land them right back in the pokey.
To the extent that that are on probation, that is part of their punishment, for which they have been convicted in a fair trial, and are being dealt with according to the punishment set out in law. it is of no relevance to what we're debating. But yes, I agree. probation terms could include deprivation of freedoms.
It's quite possible that someone knows right from wrong, but is completely unable to control themselves.
A person who "completely unable to control" himself is also called an automaton, and is not criminally liable for their actions.
They should never have been punished in the first place. But the state deemed them to have acted WILLFULLY, and therefore they are presumably able to WILLFULLY obey the law if they so choose. And as human beings they have a right to make that choice.
We obviously have to be careful, because mental health is a whole lot less empirical than organic disease, but I don't think you can put a blanket ban on civil commitment for the mentally ill without doing away with legally enforced extra-judicial quarantine of other more corporeal illnesses.
Civl commitment for the mentally ill is not the issue because we are dealing with someone who we have deemed to be mentally fit.
A rational human being, with the ability to obey the law. And when their punishment is served, ALL RIGHTS must be restored.
This is a matter of human rights, and human rights are not trumped by mere possibilities that some unspecified future act MIGHT take place.
Its true that it would be pragmatic to lock people up forever if we are afraid of them. I have a long list of people I would love to see locked up. A few who are currently serving in office. But my fear of them doesn't give me the right to lock them up. And my certainty that they will break the law does not either.
The standard of proof for punishment is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What this ruling means is that it is now ok to lock people up forever based on reasonable grounds that they MIGHT have a motive to commit a crime at any time in the future.
This throws all conception of human rights out the window. The right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness no longer exists.
Who really cares that their "browser fingerprint" is out there? Unless you're doing something wrong there's no reason to ever try to trace it back to a source.
And who defines what "wrong" is? In some places being gay is a crime. In some places being an apostate is a crime. In some places being anti-government is a crime. In some places playing violent video games, looking at porn of women with small breasts is a crime. In some places reading certain books is a crime.
Discuss how this "P.S." detail applies to unemployment benefits and/or national health care, or any form of interference, including government interference, that "equalizes opportunity regardless of genes" ? (ie. discuss how it will affect any population that attempts to equalize opportunity regardless of race)
a population that attempts to equalize economic opportunity regardless of race or background will have the same effect as a population that attempts to equalize the number of friends on your facebook profile regardless of hair color, or eye color or any other set of arbitrary cosmetic differences. Economic wealth is not strongly correlated to reproductive success and it is not inherited genetically anyway (or else the world would be full of billionaires by now). So in other words it makes no difference to population size, and that is what you seem to be trying to imply.
It will not cause a net increase or decrease in the ecosystems carrying capacity and will not hasten or delay the time when resources run out.
We will in a very short time (on a geological time scale) exhaust any and all available resources NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. The only things we can do is to try to increase the availability or resources via technology, or else change what resource will be the limiting factor. but, no matter what, some resource will be the limiting factor on population growth and that resource will run short.
when it does, some of the population will stop growing regardless of anything else that we do.
You are trying to inject your social darwinism into the science class as a method to rationalize your racism. It has no justification in science however.
The justification for Child Porn laws is that every photo is a record of an act of child abuse.
Now the children probably don't particularly like being sent to school, but I don't think any reasonable adult would consider it an act of child abuse.
This is not the justification for Child Porn laws in Canada. Canadian child porn laws include drawings, and photographs of adults depicted as children, audio recordings and written material including entirely fictional narratives that involved no actual children in any way in their production.
no children need to have been involved in the production of Canadian child pornography. The justification that the court found is that the person who sees child porn might as a result suffer a "cognitive distortion" as a result of it, and the state has an interest in protecting people from suffering cognitive distortion even if the method used is to lock them up and destroy their lives.
As someone that taught in a French university: "I don't f-ing care whether students come or not in my class". It is THEIR problem if they fail the exam and the mid term, not mine.
What I find entertaining is some students started a facebook page to protest their invasion of privacy. Isn't that IRONIC?
No not really. They choose to publish some information on facebook, does not mean they want their university to track their location from moment to moment.
Mandatory attendance won't solve all the problems, if you can convince the budding alcoholic that maybe he really ought to get up for his 9:00 am class on Wednesday morning, he might learn something. If you can get the kid who can't multiply to show up to his math classes and talk to the TAs, instead of panicking trying to teach himself (because the teachers don't make sense) perhaps they can get him into the right class.
when did any of this become the universities responsibility? University students are not "kids".
the same arguments you made could be used to force people who buy movie tickets to sit in the theatre and watch the entire movie even if they don't want to. You know: if you let someone leave early they might not understand the plot, or they might go out and become an alcoholic!
The original press release did not say anything about "definitive" evidence of water. In fact it said:
"Certain tasks remain, according to the panelists. For example, a spectrographic analysis of the “white stuff,” to prove that it is definitely water. These might be carried out by the Mars Reconnaissance orbiter, recently arrived in order to replace the aging Global Surveyor. "
So the original report said something looks like water. It isn't just a flow of dust.
And the current summary is WRONG. The new article also agrees that it is NOT simply flowing dust and sand.
"There is another possibility, however. Perhaps the gullies are caused by the flow of sand and dust. Similar gullies are known to occur on dunes on Earth but only when the angle of the hillside is above some critical threshold. The trouble with Martian gullies is that most of the hillsides are not steep enough for this process to occur."
The actual new proposal is this: "Their idea is that the gullies are formed when carbon dioxide in the ground sublimates, causing the sand to become fluidised."
This actually AGREES with the original report that said :
“These things appearing bright is extremely unusual,” said to NASA panelist Michael Malin, explaining why NASA believes the apparitions are water, not mere avalanches of dust. “In the past, the things we’ve seen are very dark this requires some kind of fluidizing agent.”
So.... rather than contradicting ANYTHING that the original press release said this new information is merely another possible explanation for the surface feature.
This brings us back full circle to:
"Certain tasks remain, according to the panelists. For example, a spectrographic analysis of the “white stuff,” to prove that it is definitely water. These might be carried out by the Mars Reconnaissance orbiter, recently arrived in order to replace the aging Global Surveyor. "
There are convicted hackers/crackers (take your pick on term) who have been banned from using a computer or computer like device for X number of years. So I would say, yes the court can bar you from a profession. If you are banned from using a computer, being a sysadmin is kind of difficult.
do you mind citing a reference for these cases? I suspect it was part of an early release agreement or a peace bond, or something else which the accused agreed to in order to avoid spending those X number of years in prison, or perhaps it was in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the supremacy of law and the fundamental principles of justice.
In Canada at least, you are not permitted to have your liberty deprived except in accordance with the fundamental principles of justice, and that means you are not allowed to be sentenced to any punishment except as specifically provided for in law and convicted on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt by an impartial tribunal at a fundamentally fair trial.
judges are absolutely not allowed to just tack on additional punishments they dream up. It goes against a fundamental principle of justice that states a person must be able to know the full extent of their peril BEFORE they act.
if judges had the right to just tack on extra punishements that aren't part of the law, then anybody could be subjected to any punishment at any time for any reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Your refusal to give a corporation your money has the consequence of depriving you of the best available prices, and also imposing on you the burden of doing costly research before each and every single purchase to see what practices the often foreign manufacturer is engaged in. To say it costs nothing is dishonest. Any refusal to perform a transaction for anything except purely economic reasons has a cost.
Ultimately since you have no way of knowing who actually has manufactured any given product or the components of it, you'll just buy what's available, the same as everybody else.
Corporations exist as a legal fiction created by government. They have access to your money via tax incentives, grants, government contracts, and unfair business practices enabled and imposed by government.
The corporation is an extension of government. It is a deliberate way to shield the wealth from public accountability while giving peons like you the illusion of freedom.
When the richest 400 americans earn more than the bottom 150million americans, you think your paltry dollar counts for anything? Trying to boycott anyone is going to hurt you more than they.
I care. Because 100 billion years of life is better than 4 billion years of life.
Of course I'm sure your ISP has a TOS that states you can't be a service provider and you are buying service for personal use only.
Such a clause is not really enforceable. They can't demonstrate any harm if you violate it. At best they can discontinue the contract. contracts are about allowing both parties to protect themselves from harm. It is not about allowing parties to impose a restriction. Its especially not there simply to limit competition in the free market.
A packet is a packet is a packet. they are alleging to sell you bandwidth, so as long as you don't exceed what they claim to be selling you, they are not harmed.
I could be wrong but if I am, I'd like to see the court case where a customer was ordered to pay damages merely because they allowed someone else to access the internet.
I'm in Canada. My netflix works.
Who said anything about the next century? We're already there.
there will never be enough space and resources on the planet for the majority of humans to live in inefficient rural settings.
a camera is a search.
The police should not be permitted to do it. Neither should you. That's the point.
Your neighbors and yourself generally were presented to one another as equals, and thus they gave you a certain degree of respect and expected the same in return. You both had a shared interested in the type of lifestyle that is possible in the community. On the other hand the new government watchers are invisible. They see you from a great distance and you don't see them at all. They have nothing to fear from you so they have no reason to treat you with respect. They are not your neighbors, they are strangers.
I don't need to have my actions monitored just in case 20 years from now I can be prosecuted for things I do now which are legal.
What guarantee do I have that no future government will ever decide to punish people retroactively for acts they committed before the act was illegal?
i.e. blasphemy against private healthcare, saying bad things about the meat industry, about the church?
my neighbors aren't part of some vast system of control designed to outlast any individual human. they just want to live their lives in peace, and some day die. and thats all.
Government are self perpetuating systems. we should not simply assume government wont turn bad.
"But I do think bandwidth should be metered. Gasoline is metered. Diesel is metered. Electricity is metered. Water is metered. Phonecalls are metered (well mine are- 18c/minute). Why not megabytes?"
Gasoline runs out. It is a physical substance and non renewable. You can store it for the future and you can resell it. data doesn't run out, and it isn't scarce. Bandwidth is created by building capacity into the network. It doesn't cost less to use less bandwidth once the capacity is there. And if you pay a metered rate for local phone service you are being ripped off.
But apart from that, the ruling applied to data transmitted locally over a DSL link between the independent ISPs and their own customers. Bandwidth that is FIXED and directly proportionate to the number of customers. (each customer has their own separate DSL). Why should the incumbent, a beneficiary of a legacy government mandated monopoly status, get to charge for usage on those links when their own costs are fixed, and when the government has decided that such monopolies are no longer good for Canada and ordered the incumbents to make certain parts of their built-while-a-monopoly-network available to competition?
allowing the incumbents to change 85% of their own unregulated retail prices to competitors when the product doesn't even include internet access but merely a link between ISPs and their own customers (locally) is tantamount to allowing the monopolies to operate without any government regulation of prices at all.
These monopolies are the same companies that provide legacy cable TV, and old copper wire land line phones. They want to discourage use of the internet at any cost.
If it wasn't for taxpayers guaranteeing these monopolies protection in decades past, they never would have gotten as powerful as they now are, so it is perfectly fair for taxpayers via the government to regulate aspects of their market practices.
By that same logic, though, you can flush most of Einsteins work too. We do not posses, nor are we likely to posses in our lifetimes barring alien intervention, the technology to directly test and observe either the General or Special theories of relativity.
Well I guess then you must believe in alien intervention because its all happened already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
And it's extremely likely that, unless the aliens were non-aggressive and prone to study everything in-depth, they'd treat us similarly to the way we treat cattle - -namely, we're dumb animals unless someone's hungry, in which case we taste pretty good.
On the bright side, we have a high chance to be completelly unsuitable as food or at least quite toxic - assuming different chiralities for example. ;) )
(and I'm not sure if "studying everything in-depth" would be a good thing...
We can be ground up and used as fertilizer for the red weed.
The main reason they sterilize their probes is to get "cleaner" data and no risk of contamination of future probe readings. After all, one cell is all they need to find. Any false-positive will be a disaster that they'd never live down.
not to mention contaminating other components of the same probe.
at least the discovery that earth life flourished on a celestial body would be scientifically interesting. A space probe that did nothing but detect that it was self-contaminated prior to launch and can't provide useful data would be a total failure.
The defendant has to pay court fees even if they win?
I'm just asking, because that sounds really crappy.
What if you are arrested, but never charged? Does no acquittal mean the fingerprints stay on file?
The courts never ordered the police to destroy any fingerprints. The police merely told the courts that they do on request and described the reasons they would refuse. The courts said, well it seems that although the law is silent on that matter - it is in fact being applied in a sensible way, so there is nothing really to do here.
I'm sure if and when the police refused to destroy someones fingerprints it would need to go back to court. but I don't see why they would want to waste the time unless they had a good reason. i.e. if a convict tried to get their fingerprints destroyed, I'm sure the government would go to court to fight against that.
it seemed to be the sense that in general the state probably doesn't have unfettered rights to simply keep fingerprints forever without any limits. the question was not formally ruled on however because the crown did not try to assert such a right.
I merely wanted to point out that in some jurisdictions at least it is recognized that fingerprints have special value and the state doesn't just get to necessarily keep them forever on anybody that happens to be arrested.
It is exactly the same, if more invasive, as fingerprinting. You get arrested, you get fingerprinted. Period. It stays in the database forever.
I'm not sure how many people have tried to fight fingerprints, but there has obviously never been a successful constitutionality challenge against it. DNA is simply a more complete, and more invasive, fingerprint.
In canada it was challenged and as a result you can request to have your fingerprints removed by the police after you are acquitted and they will be removed once they confirm there is no outstanding warrants or anything against you, that you have no criminal record and you were in fact acquitted, and that you aren't a terrorist or something else like that.
this practice probably does not include any of the special national security databases that are secret and nobody knows about, but almost certainly exist.
Wrong. Felons are punished by being removed from society and contained, but when they are allowed to return to society we do NOT restore "all rights" to them.
And as far as I'm concerned that is an atrocity and a violation of the fundamental principles of justice.
The United States is founded on the principle that the state only exists by consent of the governed. How can any person deprived of their right to vote, be said to give consent?
And if they do not consent, then how can government wield any power over them that is not tyrannical?
How fitting that the right to bear arms. The right directly associated with preventing tyranny, is also denied (in violation of the constitution, and therefore without consent of the governed) to those who are deprived their right to vote.
It is all very well and good to keep dangerous felons locked up even if their punishment is over, and now you're simply holding them for the benefit of the public. But why draw the line at felons? Why not lock up the innocent and guilty alike? or anyone who is your political rival?
Once you accept that it is ok for the government to put people in cages (or deprive them of property) for reasons separate from punishment then there is no legal necessity to convict them of any crime in the first place. Simply declare that they must be "civilly committed" for the public safety, disregard any due process, any fair trial, any burden or proof and lock them up.
This is tyrannical. You can call it what you wish.
Additionally they may remain on probation for an extended period during which they have only a portion of their rights restored and a violation of this probation can land them right back in the pokey.
To the extent that that are on probation, that is part of their punishment, for which they have been convicted in a fair trial, and are being dealt with according to the punishment set out in law. it is of no relevance to what we're debating. But yes, I agree. probation terms could include deprivation of freedoms.
It's quite possible that someone knows right from wrong, but is completely unable to control themselves.
A person who "completely unable to control" himself is also called an automaton, and is not criminally liable for their actions.
They should never have been punished in the first place. But the state deemed them to have acted WILLFULLY, and therefore they are presumably able to WILLFULLY obey the law if they so choose. And as human beings they have a right to make that choice.
We obviously have to be careful, because mental health is a whole lot less empirical than organic disease, but I don't think you can put a blanket ban on civil commitment for the mentally ill without doing away with legally enforced extra-judicial quarantine of other more corporeal illnesses.
Civl commitment for the mentally ill is not the issue because we are dealing with someone who we have deemed to be mentally fit.
A rational human being, with the ability to obey the law. And when their punishment is served, ALL RIGHTS must be restored.
This is a matter of human rights, and human rights are not trumped by mere possibilities that some unspecified future act MIGHT take place.
Its true that it would be pragmatic to lock people up forever if we are afraid of them. I have a long list of people I would love to see locked up. A few who are currently serving in office. But my fear of them doesn't give me the right to lock them up. And my certainty that they will break the law does not either.
The standard of proof for punishment is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What this ruling means is that it is now ok to lock people up forever based on reasonable grounds that they MIGHT have a motive to commit a crime at any time in the future.
This throws all conception of human rights out the window. The right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness no longer exists.
Who really cares that their "browser fingerprint" is out there? Unless you're doing something wrong there's no reason to ever try to trace it back to a source.
And who defines what "wrong" is? In some places being gay is a crime. In some places being an apostate is a crime. In some places being anti-government is a crime. In some places playing violent video games, looking at porn of women with small breasts is a crime. In some places reading certain books is a crime.
Either you are ignorant, or you are trolling.
How about making it extra super juicy ?
Discuss how this "P.S." detail applies to unemployment benefits and/or national health care, or any form of interference, including government interference, that "equalizes opportunity regardless of genes" ? (ie. discuss how it will affect any population that attempts to equalize opportunity regardless of race)
a population that attempts to equalize economic opportunity regardless of race or background will have the same effect as a population that attempts to equalize the number of friends on your facebook profile regardless of hair color, or eye color or any other set of arbitrary cosmetic differences. Economic wealth is not strongly correlated to reproductive success and it is not inherited genetically anyway (or else the world would be full of billionaires by now). So in other words it makes no difference to population size, and that is what you seem to be trying to imply.
It will not cause a net increase or decrease in the ecosystems carrying capacity and will not hasten or delay the time when resources run out.
We will in a very short time (on a geological time scale) exhaust any and all available resources NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. The only things we can do is to try to increase the availability or resources via technology, or else change what resource will be the limiting factor. but, no matter what, some resource will be the limiting factor on population growth and that resource will run short.
when it does, some of the population will stop growing regardless of anything else that we do.
You are trying to inject your social darwinism into the science class as a method to rationalize your racism. It has no justification in science however.
The justification for Child Porn laws is that every photo is a record of an act of child abuse.
Now the children probably don't particularly like being sent to school, but I don't think any reasonable adult would consider it an act of child abuse.
This is not the justification for Child Porn laws in Canada. Canadian child porn laws include drawings, and photographs of adults depicted as children, audio recordings and written material including entirely fictional narratives that involved no actual children in any way in their production.
no children need to have been involved in the production of Canadian child pornography. The justification that the court found is that the person who sees child porn might as a result suffer a "cognitive distortion" as a result of it, and the state has an interest in protecting people from suffering cognitive distortion even if the method used is to lock them up and destroy their lives.
As someone that taught in a French university: "I don't f-ing care whether students come or not in my class". It is THEIR problem if they fail the exam and the mid term, not mine.
What I find entertaining is some students started a facebook page to protest their invasion of privacy. Isn't that IRONIC?
No not really. They choose to publish some information on facebook, does not mean they want their university to track their location from moment to moment.
Mandatory attendance won't solve all the problems, if you can convince the budding alcoholic that maybe he really ought to get up for his 9:00 am class on Wednesday morning, he might learn something. If you can get the kid who can't multiply to show up to his math classes and talk to the TAs, instead of panicking trying to teach himself (because the teachers don't make sense) perhaps they can get him into the right class.
when did any of this become the universities responsibility? University students are not "kids".
the same arguments you made could be used to force people who buy movie tickets to sit in the theatre and watch the entire movie even if they don't want to. You know: if you let someone leave early they might not understand the plot, or they might go out and become an alcoholic!
The original press release did not say anything about "definitive" evidence of water. In fact it said:
"Certain tasks remain, according to the panelists. For example, a spectrographic analysis of the “white stuff,” to prove that it is definitely water. These might be carried out by the Mars Reconnaissance orbiter, recently arrived in order to replace the aging Global Surveyor.
"
So the original report said something looks like water. It isn't just a flow of dust.
And the current summary is WRONG. The new article also agrees that it is NOT simply flowing dust and sand.
"There is another possibility, however. Perhaps the gullies are caused by the flow of sand and dust. Similar gullies are known to occur on dunes on Earth but only when the angle of the hillside is above some critical threshold. The trouble with Martian gullies is that most of the hillsides are not steep enough for this process to occur."
The actual new proposal is this:
"Their idea is that the gullies are formed when carbon dioxide in the ground sublimates, causing the sand to become fluidised."
This actually AGREES with the original report that said :
“These things appearing bright is extremely unusual,” said to NASA panelist Michael Malin, explaining why NASA believes the apparitions are water, not mere avalanches of dust. “In the past, the things we’ve seen are very dark this requires some kind of fluidizing agent.”
So.... rather than contradicting ANYTHING that the original press release said this new information is merely another possible explanation for the surface feature.
This brings us back full circle to:
"Certain tasks remain, according to the panelists. For example, a spectrographic analysis of the “white stuff,” to prove that it is definitely water. These might be carried out by the Mars Reconnaissance orbiter, recently arrived in order to replace the aging Global Surveyor.
"
There are convicted hackers/crackers (take your pick on term) who have been banned from using a computer or computer like device for X number of years. So I would say, yes the court can bar you from a profession. If you are banned from using a computer, being a sysadmin is kind of difficult.
do you mind citing a reference for these cases? I suspect it was part of an early release agreement or a peace bond, or something else which the accused agreed to in order to avoid spending those X number of years in prison, or perhaps it was in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the supremacy of law and the fundamental principles of justice.
In Canada at least, you are not permitted to have your liberty deprived except in accordance with the fundamental principles of justice, and that means you are not allowed to be sentenced to any punishment except as specifically provided for in law and convicted on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt by an impartial tribunal at a fundamentally fair trial.
judges are absolutely not allowed to just tack on additional punishments they dream up. It goes against a fundamental principle of justice that states a person must be able to know the full extent of their peril BEFORE they act.
if judges had the right to just tack on extra punishements that aren't part of the law, then anybody could be subjected to any punishment at any time for any reason.