Not consuming more fuel than necessary is a worthwhile goal if you believe that markets are more efficient when market failures such as negative externalities (air pollution, etc.) are corrected.
or if you prefer not to breath somebody else's air pollution regardless of how efficient or inefficient it makes the market.
Dunno if you heard this one but "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" have always seemed like perfectly fine inalienable rights to me, we should work on implementing that inalienable part.
And because alcohol, of all things, is proof that God wants us to be happy, Americans pretty much have a constitutional defense against prohibition, right?;-)
American's did. Which is why prohibition required a constitutional amendment.
sorry. the term 'hate' was hyperbole. 'Indifferent to civilization' would have been a better term.
Imagine someone wanted to pay you to do those things you say you do in your "non working hours". In that case you would be "working" for reasons other than money. And it would not feel like work. It would simply feel like free money.
not everyone works merely for money. Some people do what they love and it happens to generate revenue as a side benefit. I just figure there has to be at least some activity you enjoy doing that is worth something to somebody. In which case you would be able to work for reasons other than mere money.
Money is the only reason one works a job. Money to live, money to retire.
Don't forget money to pay for your funeral!
Money is not the only reason one works. I happen to have unpaid jobs that are "work" in every sense except that I lose money on them. In all cases I do what I do for the satisfaction and prestige I get from being good at it, improve my skills (to get even better), solve interesting challenges and to improve the lives of others. It just so happens that 1 of my life long hobbies pays the bills so that I don't have to have a job "just for the money" so I can spend practically all of my working time for pleasure. And in many cases I enjoy the paying hobby far more than the unpaying ones.
If my primary hobby wasn't worth money, I would have to do something else, but I enjoy doing any number of things very much that people get paid to do. Most of my hobbies that I do for free are things that other people do professionally. I got sucked into 1 of them primarily because people seemed to need it more and I had a better knack for it.
I you think money is the only reason to work then I encourage you to ask yourself why you don't seem to enjoy doing anything worthwhile. Perhaps you hate civilization?
Prior to this ruling (ignoring the shake downs by trolls) an individual or small company had a chance of winning a patent case against much larger entities (motions and legal wrangling aside) as the process of discovery forces the defendant to show their cards and prove they aren't infringing with no upfront cost to the plaintiff.
With this ruling, if you come up with the next great search algorithm (software patent absurdity aside) and Bing/Google/Yahoo steals it you now have to foot the bill for the discovery. Without the court order you also aren't going to get very far in that process as they aren't exactly going to welcome you into their office, sit you down at a console, and give you access to their code.
If a company files a motion against you to for a declaratory judgement that it is not violating your patents, that motion would only be able to cover the material that it disclosed to the court. A judgement could never cover anything that they refused to disclose to the court.
You can't get a court to rule that something it has no knowledge of was legal. It has no jurisdiction to make such a ruling.
The burden of proving they infringe may rest on you, but only in terms of the subject material they are trying to get a declaratory ruling about. Perhaps a specific device or product or component. Presumably you would understand your own technology enough to be able to find the infringement or else be able to make a request for disclosure for whatever document you need to show it was infringing. And there is no principle that says that an adverse party requesting disclosure from the other side must pay costs.
I am not a lawyer, but any sane judge would refuse to make rulings about facts not in evidence before the court.
Yes, we do think those rights should apply outside the US. Mainly because we've thought those were natural (or god-given, depending on preference) rights, not privileges provided by government, since our country's conception.
Actually not quite. The American Constitution is a contract between american citizens (aka The People) of what you promise not to do to each other. The US Government is not conceived of as an independent entity with its own identity but an emergent property of The People consenting to collect their rights together for the benefit of all The People, based on the pooling of their individual sovereignty. 'We The People' refers to American citizens.
Consequently, since people in other countries didn't sign on to The American Constitution, they haven't made any promises to you of which of your rights they wont violate and you have absolutely no expectation of your contract with your fellow Americans being honoured, also you are not bound by the Constitution to respect the rights of foreigners.
There is however an expectation that anything the American Government has promised to do towards foreign nations it will honour, because The People of 1 nation can freely enter into an agreement with The People of another nation, which is why American Treaties actually form part of the law of the land (and it says this in the Constitution). This, for instance, means the US government must honour the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights inside the borders of any nation that is a signatory to it because the US is a signatory to it.
The bottom line is that the Constitution is a written contract between The People. The US government doesn't claim to be bound to always respect inalienable rights, but only whatever it expressly agreed to respect.
At the very most some foreign government can violate your so called inalienable rights and you could launch a civil lawsuit (or a revolution) against it for being wronged and a US court might agree with you. But nothing in the Bill of Rights claims that all of the rights contained therein are all inalienable rights.
Alan Turing, like Oscar Wilde, had some sexual partners who were working class youth.
Back in those days, homosexuality was homosexuality, all homosexuality was illegal, and age wasn't much of an issue.
While the Gay Movement celebrates the unjust persecution of Alan Turing for "Homosexuality," they gloss over the fact that today, we would lock him up, throw away the key, and denounce him as a pedophile for consensual sex with teenagers.
It's lovely that he's been pardoned, but it's a bit hypocritical how today's Gay Activists grandfather in for Historical Gay Icons, behavior they would be the first to loudly condemn in their contemporaries.
I think at the time the age of consent was 14. Are you sure he was having with sex with anyone below the age of consent?
If you can quash a conviction even though it was perfectly correct by the law at the time it happened then you can prosecute someone for something they do today if it's made illegal next year.
Retroactive law is a dangerous box to open.
It is a determination that the previous conviction was in fact NOT perfectly correct by the law.
There is no specific reason why humanity has to worship the stupid choices of past generations and pretend our ancestors knew everything. We can abolish old laws and declare that they were always unjust from the start. That isn't the same thing as punishing people for past technically legal actions.
Federal Communication Commision regulates cell phones. Federal law preempts state law. Any California law could be nulified by the FCC.
Federal Law only pre-empts state law when there is a contradiction. Is there a federal law that specifically says cell phones must not have a remote killswitch?
No, reflection from a plastic with aluminum powder embedded in it is only partial, the remainder of the energy is turned to heat. These high powered lasers can bore a hole through a normal household mirror, by the way, for the same reason.
1. they don't fire the laser at the reflective side of the mirror. the non-reflective side of a mirror is usually tarnished and pretty dark colored. 2. the metal in a mirror is very thin.
not saying it is impossible, but it strikes me that the development cost of a laser resistant mortar would be far far less than the cost of a laser system that can reliably destroy such a mortar.
I don't think mylar is a good material to use either.
Considering that chimps are as intelligent (at least) as two and three year olds, I think they should be given the same sort of rights. The right not to be tortured, and mistreated for one.
Oh but they are beasts and awful, and rape and stuff. Yeah, humans are horrible aren't they.
Humans aren't special. Get over yourselves.
intelligence is not the ONLY reason we give 3 year olds rights.
the other reason is that 3 year old grow up into 4 year olds, then 5 year olds, then 20 year olds etc. Chimps never grow up into adult humans.
Isn't that precisely what modern pro-choicers also think? That different classes of persons should have different rights? The difference being that most aren't willing to call fetuses people....
Nope. I didn't have a right to embed myself into my mother's body when I was conceived, nor when I was 4 months a fetus, 4 months a baby, or 40 years old.
I think nobody has the right to be embedded into any woman's body without her continuing consent EVER.
The instant a mother wants to retract her consent from a fetus is the instant she has a right to an abortion and it absolutely trumps any claims the fetus has.
So - go ahead and call a fetus a human being or a person or whatever you want. I'm still pro choice.
Exactly, well put. It is entirely moral for me to torment a retarded child, who can't understand or return respect to me.
Thanks for clearing that up!
Not so. Because humans have empathy and you can't torment a "retarded child" or a dog or an ape without indirectly tormenting yourself.
the child or animal would exhibit symptoms of distress which you can understand on an instinctive level because you are a human being and you would want to provide assistance to relieve the suffering. If you didn't feel such motivation then arguably it is YOU who don't understand respect and can not return it.
Furthermore there is an entire legal process that would be triggered by such an action which necessarily entails a great deal of unpleasant labour by other people to deal with your actions, perform a criminal investigation, etc and so you are tormenting other moral agents as well.
The rest of us, having every reason to believe you have empathy and understand the consequences of those acts would judge your acts as immoral. And if you proved you felt felt no empathy or understanding of the concept of law we would judge you as being criminally insane and thus not a moral agent yourself.
As a general rule you are not the owner of property sent to you in error.
If someone _deliberately_ sends unsolicited property to you, then the usual rule is this is presumptively a gift.
If someone _accidentally_ sends property to you then the usual rule is that ownership is not transferred automatically.
However if you reasonably assumed it was a gift then you might have lost it or sold it thinking it was your own, and since the error was not yours, you would not be liable. On the other hand, it is unreasonable to think a store would send you a video game system for no reason. And a reasonable person who orders something from a store, and recieves the wrong product would first suspect an error on the stores part. If you contact the store and they say "nope it is a gift!" then you can keep it.
Honestly, your example of "Germany became strong due to these tactics and without which couldn't have tried to take over the world" doesn't really help your cause. With a weak, divided Germany there would have been no World Wars and millions of gentiles and Jewish people would be alive today.
How is protectionism racism? I have to live with the people in my community and they are the ones who are going to cry on my shoulder when they lose their homes. It has nothing to do with their race.
refusing to allow immigrants into my community might be racism, but that is NOT what an import tariff is about. Import tariffs only refer to products and services, not people.
refusing to allow cheap imports is just a method of helping my neighbors have a competetive advantage (even if unfair) so they can continue to do something productive rather than sit around being unemployed.
when they have money in their pockets they are more likely to buy stuff from me. far more likely than somebody on the opposite side of the planet.
This keeps us both busy and feeling happy about our lives. We feel like we are working together with out immediate neighbors. this is the source of much happiness in the world.
More over - there are certain labour and environmental practices that I consider to be immoral and should be banned regardless of the cost. Doing business with my neighbors allows me to ensure for myself that they are behaving in a way I consider to be ethical. If products come from mystery factories overseas then I have no clue who is being exploited or how much pollution is being created.
I've never been able to get the PS3 to play my remote media (or even the same media off a USB stick). It won't even recognise my MP3 files.
Getting it to work with my Harmony remote was a pain in the butt, too. This was before Harmony released the bluetooth bridge which I refuse to use on general principle.
strange because I use my PS3 to play off a my Netgear router/media server almost every day. I even used it to play off my Acer tablet. And MP3s are no problem at all.
Depends on how you define "works". If you mean funds the state pretty well and protects some industries at the expense of everyone else, then yes they work great.
not at the expense of "everyone else". That is an over simplification.
For instance, If the price of imported electronics goes up (via an import tariff), this creates an opportunity for local electronics producers to benefit. The local cost of electronics increases, and the profit margins of local electronics producers increase. But the only people who have any increased expense are those who buy electronics.
If you don't buy electronics then your costs are unaffected. And if you buy electronics your costs are affected only in proportion to that specific item.
However the local manufacturing of electronics creates jobs, and creates demand in many sectors, not only electronics (for instance a factory requires construction and machines which are not necessarily made exclusively of microchips). the people with those jobs are now going to spend their money throughout the entire local economy, which in turn benefits everybody locally. In turn this creates more incentive for local investment and even greater local prosperity.
Protectionism has a proven history of working. And every wealthy powerful nation started off as very protectionist. There is not 1 single example of a country becoming wealthy and powerful by starting as a completely open free trade zone.
Sounds like it would be better to have everyone work one day a week, while everyone benefits from social welfare. Though it also sounds like severe taxes on having too many kids should be in order too.
Nope, we're approaching 3 classes, Robot Slaves(who don't mind), super wealthy robot owners, and people who are expected to work in a world where work is done by robots.
You forgot the 4th class. The permanently underemployed.
No, the radio is one of the most deadly innovations because it facilitates coordination. Coordinating 5 people can result in far more damage than hundreds cooperating, assuming the right tactics.
the twinkie is the deadliest innovation. 1 selfish uncoordinated person with a twinkie can defeat an any finite number of co-ordinated selfish people armed with radios, even if they use the right tactics, assuming that twinkies always win every battle.
How is it "mob rule" when democratically elected representatives ban something years in advance, then an independant law enforcement agency takes someone to be tried before an independant judiciary for violating it?
Your argument can be equally applied to the enforcement of any law whatsoever as being "mob rule".
the law might be an infringement of the Charter of Rights and could even be overturned by the Supreme Court, but it isn't going to be influenced by the size of mob that shows up at anybody's doorstep, or what any politician wants to say about it.
Most NDA's don't involve Top Secret intelligence information. Who did the asking, by the way? You may remember that the UK warned airlines that they would be liable for all expenses for handling Snowden (arrest, confinement, etc.) if they brought Snowden to the UK. The UK has no interest in dumping money down the well like they've had to with Assange.
The UK will be compensated - one way or the other - for this. There is no treaty obligation on the UK authorities to go to such extreme efforts to block Assange from leaving and this is very irregular, so the simplest explanation is that there is a keen interest in this.
Slashdot Mirror
Not consuming more fuel than necessary is a worthwhile goal if you believe that markets are more efficient when market failures such as negative externalities (air pollution, etc.) are corrected.
or if you prefer not to breath somebody else's air pollution regardless of how efficient or inefficient it makes the market.
Dunno if you heard this one but "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" have always seemed like perfectly fine inalienable rights to me, we should work on implementing that inalienable part.
And because alcohol, of all things, is proof that God wants us to be happy, Americans pretty much have a constitutional defense against prohibition, right? ;-)
American's did. Which is why prohibition required a constitutional amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Size? Potential size?
you mean in square feet?
sorry. the term 'hate' was hyperbole. 'Indifferent to civilization' would have been a better term.
Imagine someone wanted to pay you to do those things you say you do in your "non working hours". In that case you would be "working" for reasons other than money. And it would not feel like work. It would simply feel like free money.
not everyone works merely for money. Some people do what they love and it happens to generate revenue as a side benefit. I just figure there has to be at least some activity you enjoy doing that is worth something to somebody. In which case you would be able to work for reasons other than mere money.
Money is the only reason one works a job. Money to live, money to retire.
Don't forget money to pay for your funeral!
Money is not the only reason one works. I happen to have unpaid jobs that are "work" in every sense except that I lose money on them. In all cases I do what I do for the satisfaction and prestige I get from being good at it, improve my skills (to get even better), solve interesting challenges and to improve the lives of others. It just so happens that 1 of my life long hobbies pays the bills so that I don't have to have a job "just for the money" so I can spend practically all of my working time for pleasure. And in many cases I enjoy the paying hobby far more than the unpaying ones.
If my primary hobby wasn't worth money, I would have to do something else, but I enjoy doing any number of things very much that people get paid to do. Most of my hobbies that I do for free are things that other people do professionally. I got sucked into 1 of them primarily because people seemed to need it more and I had a better knack for it.
I you think money is the only reason to work then I encourage you to ask yourself why you don't seem to enjoy doing anything worthwhile. Perhaps you hate civilization?
Prior to this ruling (ignoring the shake downs by trolls) an individual or small company had a chance of winning a patent case against much larger entities (motions and legal wrangling aside) as the process of discovery forces the defendant to show their cards and prove they aren't infringing with no upfront cost to the plaintiff.
With this ruling, if you come up with the next great search algorithm (software patent absurdity aside) and Bing/Google/Yahoo steals it you now have to foot the bill for the discovery. Without the court order you also aren't going to get very far in that process as they aren't exactly going to welcome you into their office, sit you down at a console, and give you access to their code.
If a company files a motion against you to for a declaratory judgement that it is not violating your patents, that motion would only be able to cover the material that it disclosed to the court. A judgement could never cover anything that they refused to disclose to the court.
You can't get a court to rule that something it has no knowledge of was legal. It has no jurisdiction to make such a ruling.
The burden of proving they infringe may rest on you, but only in terms of the subject material they are trying to get a declaratory ruling about. Perhaps a specific device or product or component. Presumably you would understand your own technology enough to be able to find the infringement or else be able to make a request for disclosure for whatever document you need to show it was infringing. And there is no principle that says that an adverse party requesting disclosure from the other side must pay costs.
I am not a lawyer, but any sane judge would refuse to make rulings about facts not in evidence before the court.
Yes, we do think those rights should apply outside the US. Mainly because we've thought those were natural (or god-given, depending on preference) rights, not privileges provided by government, since our country's conception.
Actually not quite. The American Constitution is a contract between american citizens (aka The People) of what you promise not to do to each other. The US Government is not conceived of as an independent entity with its own identity but an emergent property of The People consenting to collect their rights together for the benefit of all The People, based on the pooling of their individual sovereignty. 'We The People' refers to American citizens.
Consequently, since people in other countries didn't sign on to The American Constitution, they haven't made any promises to you of which of your rights they wont violate and you have absolutely no expectation of your contract with your fellow Americans being honoured, also you are not bound by the Constitution to respect the rights of foreigners.
There is however an expectation that anything the American Government has promised to do towards foreign nations it will honour, because The People of 1 nation can freely enter into an agreement with The People of another nation, which is why American Treaties actually form part of the law of the land (and it says this in the Constitution). This, for instance, means the US government must honour the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights inside the borders of any nation that is a signatory to it because the US is a signatory to it.
The bottom line is that the Constitution is a written contract between The People. The US government doesn't claim to be bound to always respect inalienable rights, but only whatever it expressly agreed to respect.
At the very most some foreign government can violate your so called inalienable rights and you could launch a civil lawsuit (or a revolution) against it for being wronged and a US court might agree with you. But nothing in the Bill of Rights claims that all of the rights contained therein are all inalienable rights.
We'll learn that there are some things that are simply too expensive to fund by voluntary donations and advertising dollars.
Alan Turing, like Oscar Wilde, had some sexual partners who were working class youth.
Back in those days, homosexuality was homosexuality, all homosexuality was illegal, and age wasn't much of an issue.
While the Gay Movement celebrates the unjust persecution of Alan Turing for "Homosexuality," they gloss over the fact that today, we would lock him up, throw away the key, and denounce him as a pedophile for consensual sex with teenagers.
It's lovely that he's been pardoned, but it's a bit hypocritical how today's Gay Activists grandfather in for Historical Gay Icons, behavior they would be the first to loudly condemn in their contemporaries.
I think at the time the age of consent was 14. Are you sure he was having with sex with anyone below the age of consent?
If you can quash a conviction even though it was perfectly correct by the law at the time it happened then you can prosecute someone for something they do today if it's made illegal next year.
Retroactive law is a dangerous box to open.
It is a determination that the previous conviction was in fact NOT perfectly correct by the law.
There is no specific reason why humanity has to worship the stupid choices of past generations and pretend our ancestors knew everything. We can abolish old laws and declare that they were always unjust from the start. That isn't the same thing as punishing people for past technically legal actions.
Federal Communication Commision regulates cell phones. Federal law preempts state law. Any California law could be nulified by the FCC.
Federal Law only pre-empts state law when there is a contradiction. Is there a federal law that specifically says cell phones must not have a remote killswitch?
No, reflection from a plastic with aluminum powder embedded in it is only partial, the remainder of the energy is turned to heat. These high powered lasers can bore a hole through a normal household mirror, by the way, for the same reason.
1. they don't fire the laser at the reflective side of the mirror. the non-reflective side of a mirror is usually tarnished and pretty dark colored.
2. the metal in a mirror is very thin.
not saying it is impossible, but it strikes me that the development cost of a laser resistant mortar would be far far less than the cost of a laser system that can reliably destroy such a mortar.
I don't think mylar is a good material to use either.
Considering that chimps are as intelligent (at least) as two and three year olds, I think they should be given the same sort of rights. The right not to be tortured, and mistreated for one.
Oh but they are beasts and awful, and rape and stuff. Yeah, humans are horrible aren't they.
Humans aren't special. Get over yourselves.
intelligence is not the ONLY reason we give 3 year olds rights.
the other reason is that 3 year old grow up into 4 year olds, then 5 year olds, then 20 year olds etc. Chimps never grow up into adult humans.
the differences don't stop there.
Isn't that precisely what modern pro-choicers also think? That different classes of persons should have different rights? The difference being that most aren't willing to call fetuses people....
Nope. I didn't have a right to embed myself into my mother's body when I was conceived, nor when I was 4 months a fetus, 4 months a baby, or 40 years old.
I think nobody has the right to be embedded into any woman's body without her continuing consent EVER.
The instant a mother wants to retract her consent from a fetus is the instant she has a right to an abortion and it absolutely trumps any claims the fetus has.
So - go ahead and call a fetus a human being or a person or whatever you want. I'm still pro choice.
Exactly, well put. It is entirely moral for me to torment a retarded child, who can't understand or return respect to me.
Thanks for clearing that up!
Not so. Because humans have empathy and you can't torment a "retarded child" or a dog or an ape without indirectly tormenting yourself.
the child or animal would exhibit symptoms of distress which you can understand on an instinctive level because you are a human being and you would want to provide assistance to relieve the suffering. If you didn't feel such motivation then arguably it is YOU who don't understand respect and can not return it.
Furthermore there is an entire legal process that would be triggered by such an action which necessarily entails a great deal of unpleasant labour by other people to deal with your actions, perform a criminal investigation, etc and so you are tormenting other moral agents as well.
The rest of us, having every reason to believe you have empathy and understand the consequences of those acts would judge your acts as immoral. And if you proved you felt felt no empathy or understanding of the concept of law we would judge you as being criminally insane and thus not a moral agent yourself.
As a general rule you are not the owner of property sent to you in error.
If someone _deliberately_ sends unsolicited property to you, then the usual rule is this is presumptively a gift.
If someone _accidentally_ sends property to you then the usual rule is that ownership is not transferred automatically.
However if you reasonably assumed it was a gift then you might have lost it or sold it thinking it was your own, and since the error was not yours, you would not be liable. On the other hand, it is unreasonable to think a store would send you a video game system for no reason. And a reasonable person who orders something from a store, and recieves the wrong product would first suspect an error on the stores part. If you contact the store and they say "nope it is a gift!" then you can keep it.
Protectionism is nativism. Nativism is racism.
Honestly, your example of "Germany became strong due to these tactics and without which couldn't have tried to take over the world" doesn't really help your cause. With a weak, divided Germany there would have been no World Wars and millions of gentiles and Jewish people would be alive today.
How is protectionism racism? I have to live with the people in my community and they are the ones who are going to cry on my shoulder when they lose their homes. It has nothing to do with their race.
refusing to allow immigrants into my community might be racism, but that is NOT what an import tariff is about. Import tariffs only refer to products and services, not people.
refusing to allow cheap imports is just a method of helping my neighbors have a competetive advantage (even if unfair) so they can continue to do something productive rather than sit around being unemployed.
when they have money in their pockets they are more likely to buy stuff from me. far more likely than somebody on the opposite side of the planet.
This keeps us both busy and feeling happy about our lives. We feel like we are working together with out immediate neighbors. this is the source of much happiness in the world.
More over - there are certain labour and environmental practices that I consider to be immoral and should be banned regardless of the cost. Doing business with my neighbors allows me to ensure for myself that they are behaving in a way I consider to be ethical. If products come from mystery factories overseas then I have no clue who is being exploited or how much pollution is being created.
I've never been able to get the PS3 to play my remote media (or even the same media off a USB stick). It won't even recognise my MP3 files.
Getting it to work with my Harmony remote was a pain in the butt, too. This was before Harmony released the bluetooth bridge which I refuse to use on general principle.
strange because I use my PS3 to play off a my Netgear router/media server almost every day. I even used it to play off my Acer tablet. And MP3s are no problem at all.
Depends on how you define "works". If you mean funds the state pretty well and protects some industries at the expense of everyone else, then yes they work great.
not at the expense of "everyone else". That is an over simplification.
For instance, If the price of imported electronics goes up (via an import tariff), this creates an opportunity for local electronics producers to benefit. The local cost of electronics increases, and the profit margins of local electronics producers increase. But the only people who have any increased expense are those who buy electronics.
If you don't buy electronics then your costs are unaffected. And if you buy electronics your costs are affected only in proportion to that specific item.
However the local manufacturing of electronics creates jobs, and creates demand in many sectors, not only electronics (for instance a factory requires construction and machines which are not necessarily made exclusively of microchips). the people with those jobs are now going to spend their money throughout the entire local economy, which in turn benefits everybody locally. In turn this creates more incentive for local investment and even greater local prosperity.
Protectionism has a proven history of working. And every wealthy powerful nation started off as very protectionist. There is not 1 single example of a country becoming wealthy and powerful by starting as a completely open free trade zone.
Touch typing speed is irrelevant for programmers.
yes. just like being able to play a musical instrument is irrelevant for composers.
( that was sarcasm)
Sounds like it would be better to have everyone work one day a week, while everyone benefits from social welfare. Though it also sounds like severe taxes on having too many kids should be in order too.
So tax the kids. makes sense.
Nope, we're approaching 3 classes, Robot Slaves(who don't mind), super wealthy robot owners, and people who are expected to work in a world where work is done by robots.
You forgot the 4th class. The permanently underemployed.
No, the radio is one of the most deadly innovations because it facilitates coordination. Coordinating 5 people can result in far more damage than hundreds cooperating, assuming the right tactics.
the twinkie is the deadliest innovation. 1 selfish uncoordinated person with a twinkie can defeat an any finite number of co-ordinated selfish people armed with radios, even if they use the right tactics, assuming that twinkies always win every battle.
How is it "mob rule" when democratically elected representatives ban something years in advance, then an independant law enforcement agency takes someone to be tried before an independant judiciary for violating it?
Your argument can be equally applied to the enforcement of any law whatsoever as being "mob rule".
the law might be an infringement of the Charter of Rights and could even be overturned by the Supreme Court, but it isn't going to be influenced by the size of mob that shows up at anybody's doorstep, or what any politician wants to say about it.
Most NDA's don't involve Top Secret intelligence information. Who did the asking, by the way? You may remember that the UK warned airlines that they would be liable for all expenses for handling Snowden (arrest, confinement, etc.) if they brought Snowden to the UK. The UK has no interest in dumping money down the well like they've had to with Assange.
The UK will be compensated - one way or the other - for this. There is no treaty obligation on the UK authorities to go to such extreme efforts to block Assange from leaving and this is very irregular, so the simplest explanation is that there is a keen interest in this.