What's the worth of discovering the secrets of the Cosmos?
Then shut up and give the natives what they are asking for it then if it is so incredibly valuable, or do you mean that as the discovery has value to other people it is ok to ignore the rights and desires of natives?
Something is either ethical or it isn't. It doesn't become ethical to treat people poorly just because your motivation is science rather than profit. If the land really is worth bugger all to anyone else then offer them the $1 million pa and tell them to take it or leave it and respect their decision.
Then use fraudsters, hackers, identity thieves or whatever better characterises their crimes. Someone who, for example sells illegal drugs online rather than by phone, is a drug dealer and the moniker cyber-criminal is far to vague.
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. The firearms used in the attacks weren't legal in France but that didn't stop anything.
The scale of that logical fallacy is staggering... a law/ban/restriction not stopping all activity doesn't equate to not stopping anything (something which primary school children could comfortably understand). Even factoring in an abnormal event like the Paris attacks the people in France will still have 1/3rd or less chance of being killed with a gun than Americans.
The incidents people actually think about when they hear mass shootings probably lies closer to the 61 figure.
The fact that you think nearly 300 incidents in which 4 or more people were shot wouldn't fit people's image of mass shootings just shows how warped your citizens perspective is on guns.
If you never do hit-and-run, you have nothing to fear? No worries about your car constantly reporting its location to the cell provider which can be accessed by law enforcement, or lawyers in lawsuits, or hackers, or sold ("anonymized" of course) to others, or be intercepted and tracked, or...? No innocent person has ever suffered negative consequences due to information being misconstrued, or misrepresented, or just wrong? So "you've got nothing to fear"?
I like how you don't even pause for breathe after accusing someone else of a blatant strawman before launching into your own.
The feature this article is about is triggered by a crash, and nothing said here so far indicates it works in other circumstances, so your entire rant is about something else. Given the percentage of people who have mobile phones, the car having its own cell has approximately no additional privacy implications; and although I'd like to see far far more restrictions on the collection and use of cell data that's a separate issue.
So, in effect, you just said that although they should be prosecuted, you don't want them to be, most of the time. Unless they turn themselves in, I guess.
In the same way that you opposing mandatory DNA registration and personal GPS trackers being required for the entire population would be you saying you don't want to catch as many murderers etc as possible; any protection of privacy could in theory make prosecuting someone for a crime harder, that doesn't automatically mean we should throw them all out.
Observe Homo Sapiens, for whom one "good" story is all it takes to justify a large forfeit of one's privacy.
...because they who think that the existence on the market of a car with this functionality is the same as forfeiting privacy; because they think through some form of delusion that any and all forms of data collection, even voluntary, must inherently lead to an Orwellian dystopia.
You are aware that the "all actions are self interested" thing is pretty much a nonsense that economics stubbornly maintains over the objections of psychology and philosophy.
The issue with disproving, and proving, what someone's motivations are is that it's impossible to directly observe. In an experiment where someone can 'cheat' without risk of getting caught and benefit, you might consider someone who didn't cheat as acting against self-interest; however, they might have a strong moral compass and consider the value of cheating to be lower than the challenge to their self image; thus either decision could be based on self-interest.
The flaw in the GM cars was obviously an accident.
Read into it a little before responding defending them if you want to have a reasoned discussion. The issue was a design mistake, but the process of covering it up and not acting to fix a life threatening issue wasn't; I have no intention of defending VW (which is why I didn't in my post).
On February 7, 2014, General Motors (GM) recalled about 800,000 of its small cars due to faulty ignition switches, which could shut off the engine during driving and thereby prevent the airbags from inflating. The company continued to recall more of its cars over the next several months, resulting in nearly 30 million cars worldwide recalled[2] and paid compensation for 124 deaths. The fault had been known to GM for at least a decade prior to the recall being declared.
GM kills over a hundred people with a known fault and nobody in the US seems to give a shit, a foreign company cheats emission tests and it's like the whole world ended.
My last two cars have been diesel Focus models in the UK. The last one was bang on the official MPG, the current one is averaging 60 and the official one is 61.3; and the difference is probably down to the fact the new car has auto-stop ignition which the MPG tests give way too much influence to. That said, I still think the whole set up needs refining as it is clear that lots of cars MPG stats are complete bollocks.
Many things that aren't true can be considered true if you change the definition;) and it still wouldn't show that he set a precedent of using a lot of them as many presidents before him have used them extensively.
You can't just offer unlimited until you get the market share or force competition out and then change terms.
You're right! Now that Google Drive, Dropbox, and the fucking billions of alternative options, are all out of business and MS completely dominates cloud storage... What the hell are you smoking if you think MS has anything close to a monopoly on cloud storage!?
For matters of criminal law. That isn't how things work at war, on the battlefield, under the Law of War.
Except you don't seem to appreciate how the laws of war operate. You'd be hard pushed to find a consensus on when they apply (certainly they were originally written to apply when war had been declared) and additionally they are written to apply only uniformed military fighting uniformed military. Additionally if the laws of war apply then ISIS etc are enemy combatants and must be treated as prisoners of war when captured; which the US is clearly not doing (Guantanamo being the most egregious example).
The fact that you think the US is justified in what it did in these cases doesn't mean you can't still have a rational appreciated of the law, and accept that it was in fact illegal.
I don't expect this to stop when O is finally out of office, but the precedent he's set for future Presidents is scary....unless we actually get one that is interested in trying to go back to a more Constitutional level of authority and power.
I don't think it's accurate to claim he set the precedent, even if he has continued it and perhaps used it for larger things. It's also an outright lie to claim he used the most, he's used less exec orders than Bush or Clinton and F. Roosevelt issued around 15 times as many as Obama has so far.
Why aren't the police stopping and searching Japanese tourists, if they're 'racists'?
Because you don't have to discriminate against all races, or all races but your own, to be racist; it's hardly a complex concept but you seem to have failed to grasp it.
I don't know if the kind of bollocks your on about gets much acceptance in the US, but fortunately there's a decent proportion of the population in the UK who think it's unacceptable for the police to target people because of the colour of their skin.
Feel free to elaborate how monitoring of their activities somehow prevents law enforcement from preventing "terrorism".
Feel free to admit whether you either missed his point or are actually naive enough to believe that the government never uses Terrorism as an excuse to stop things that that have little, if anything, to do with terrorism.
Sounds like a bad plan to me; it seems like it would invariably go wrong in one of a number of ways:
1/ You've actually done stuff that's worth reporting on which is embarrassing, in which case the news media will happily use it in stories.
2/ You've genuinely done nothing embarrassing of note, and people won't believe your list is real and complete.
3/ There's something you've forgotten, or didn't think worthy of including, which may be trivial that is found out and the whole exercise comes across as a lie.
4/ Someone makes up, or misinterprets, something and you look like a fraud.
It doesn't matter if you genuinely don't find anything about your past embarrassing, the thing that will harm your chances is other people's interpretation of those events.
A case based on one poor anecdotal example, and a half-arsed ad-hominem, thanks for sharing your insight...
If he was wrong, and you were right, then a story about a company paying all its employees well wouldn't be news and a story about a company paying it staff poorly would be shocking and it doesn't take a genius to see that isn't how things are.
If you don't like the employment laws then don't employ people; but if you do it in a way that doesn't fit the employment law then expect to face consequences.
This ruins things for all the people that DO like and prefer the contractor paradigm.
What are you getting your knickers so twisted about, if your concern is valid and this is an example of contractor work then the courts will rule that way.
If it turns out this is an example of a company classifying people who are de facto employees as contractors to get away from their obligations to employees then your talk about paradigms isn't valid. If I can only work for one firm, have fixed hours and duties, and must act like a standard employee in every way exactly what paradigm do you think has shifted.
The issues are a little muddier to me when it comes to using a character.
I'm really not sure why it is. If I'm the first person to create a life-saving drug, I don't get perpetual ownership of that drug and all refinements of that drug, nor should I. If I design a distinctive type of building, I don't get to stop people creating buildings of similar shape for time immemorial. Why on earth does the guy who draws a cartoon mouse get such astonishing protection of his intellectual property compared to people whose intellectual endevours had a far larger beneficial impact on society.
In short: The world would not be a worse place if Disney couldn't copyright characters eternally for anyone other than Disney shareholders.
If a law says it's illegal for black people to sit at the lunch counter then it should be illegal regardless of any other criminal activity in the vicinity.
Not even a remotely imaginative straw-man – but what should I have expected – the presence of other illegality has literally nothing to do with whether a law discriminating against blacks is morally defensible or not. Come up with a more persuasive argument, you can't brush away any law you feel like with a half-arsed analogy to the civil rights movement.
Slashdot Mirror
Then use fraudsters, hackers, identity thieves or whatever better characterises their crimes. Someone who, for example sells illegal drugs online rather than by phone, is a drug dealer and the moniker cyber-criminal is far to vague.
The scale of that logical fallacy is staggering... a law/ban/restriction not stopping all activity doesn't equate to not stopping anything (something which primary school children could comfortably understand). Even factoring in an abnormal event like the Paris attacks the people in France will still have 1/3rd or less chance of being killed with a gun than Americans.
The fact that you think nearly 300 incidents in which 4 or more people were shot wouldn't fit people's image of mass shootings just shows how warped your citizens perspective is on guns.
Whereas I would have thought you'd have to have a monumentally poor imagination not to be able to come up with a half dozen or more.
I like how you don't even pause for breathe after accusing someone else of a blatant strawman before launching into your own.
The feature this article is about is triggered by a crash, and nothing said here so far indicates it works in other circumstances, so your entire rant is about something else. Given the percentage of people who have mobile phones, the car having its own cell has approximately no additional privacy implications; and although I'd like to see far far more restrictions on the collection and use of cell data that's a separate issue.
In the same way that you opposing mandatory DNA registration and personal GPS trackers being required for the entire population would be you saying you don't want to catch as many murderers etc as possible; any protection of privacy could in theory make prosecuting someone for a crime harder, that doesn't automatically mean we should throw them all out.
...because they who think that the existence on the market of a car with this functionality is the same as forfeiting privacy; because they think through some form of delusion that any and all forms of data collection, even voluntary, must inherently lead to an Orwellian dystopia.
The issue with disproving, and proving, what someone's motivations are is that it's impossible to directly observe. In an experiment where someone can 'cheat' without risk of getting caught and benefit, you might consider someone who didn't cheat as acting against self-interest; however, they might have a strong moral compass and consider the value of cheating to be lower than the challenge to their self image; thus either decision could be based on self-interest.
Read into it a little before responding defending them if you want to have a reasoned discussion. The issue was a design mistake, but the process of covering it up and not acting to fix a life threatening issue wasn't; I have no intention of defending VW (which is why I didn't in my post).
GM kills over a hundred people with a known fault and nobody in the US seems to give a shit, a foreign company cheats emission tests and it's like the whole world ended.
My last two cars have been diesel Focus models in the UK. The last one was bang on the official MPG, the current one is averaging 60 and the official one is 61.3; and the difference is probably down to the fact the new car has auto-stop ignition which the MPG tests give way too much influence to. That said, I still think the whole set up needs refining as it is clear that lots of cars MPG stats are complete bollocks.
Many things that aren't true can be considered true if you change the definition ;) and it still wouldn't show that he set a precedent of using a lot of them as many presidents before him have used them extensively.
You're right! Now that Google Drive, Dropbox, and the fucking billions of alternative options, are all out of business and MS completely dominates cloud storage... What the hell are you smoking if you think MS has anything close to a monopoly on cloud storage!?
Except you don't seem to appreciate how the laws of war operate. You'd be hard pushed to find a consensus on when they apply (certainly they were originally written to apply when war had been declared) and additionally they are written to apply only uniformed military fighting uniformed military. Additionally if the laws of war apply then ISIS etc are enemy combatants and must be treated as prisoners of war when captured; which the US is clearly not doing (Guantanamo being the most egregious example).
The fact that you think the US is justified in what it did in these cases doesn't mean you can't still have a rational appreciated of the law, and accept that it was in fact illegal.
I don't think it's accurate to claim he set the precedent, even if he has continued it and perhaps used it for larger things. It's also an outright lie to claim he used the most, he's used less exec orders than Bush or Clinton and F. Roosevelt issued around 15 times as many as Obama has so far.
Because you don't have to discriminate against all races, or all races but your own, to be racist; it's hardly a complex concept but you seem to have failed to grasp it.
I don't know if the kind of bollocks your on about gets much acceptance in the US, but fortunately there's a decent proportion of the population in the UK who think it's unacceptable for the police to target people because of the colour of their skin.
Feel free to admit whether you either missed his point or are actually naive enough to believe that the government never uses Terrorism as an excuse to stop things that that have little, if anything, to do with terrorism.
I felt pressed to respond and let off some steam.
Sounds like a bad plan to me; it seems like it would invariably go wrong in one of a number of ways:
1/ You've actually done stuff that's worth reporting on which is embarrassing, in which case the news media will happily use it in stories.
2/ You've genuinely done nothing embarrassing of note, and people won't believe your list is real and complete.
3/ There's something you've forgotten, or didn't think worthy of including, which may be trivial that is found out and the whole exercise comes across as a lie.
4/ Someone makes up, or misinterprets, something and you look like a fraud.
It doesn't matter if you genuinely don't find anything about your past embarrassing, the thing that will harm your chances is other people's interpretation of those events.
A case based on one poor anecdotal example, and a half-arsed ad-hominem, thanks for sharing your insight...
If he was wrong, and you were right, then a story about a company paying all its employees well wouldn't be news and a story about a company paying it staff poorly would be shocking and it doesn't take a genius to see that isn't how things are.
If you don't like the employment laws then don't employ people; but if you do it in a way that doesn't fit the employment law then expect to face consequences.
What are you getting your knickers so twisted about, if your concern is valid and this is an example of contractor work then the courts will rule that way.
If it turns out this is an example of a company classifying people who are de facto employees as contractors to get away from their obligations to employees then your talk about paradigms isn't valid. If I can only work for one firm, have fixed hours and duties, and must act like a standard employee in every way exactly what paradigm do you think has shifted.
I'm really not sure why it is. If I'm the first person to create a life-saving drug, I don't get perpetual ownership of that drug and all refinements of that drug, nor should I. If I design a distinctive type of building, I don't get to stop people creating buildings of similar shape for time immemorial. Why on earth does the guy who draws a cartoon mouse get such astonishing protection of his intellectual property compared to people whose intellectual endevours had a far larger beneficial impact on society.
In short: The world would not be a worse place if Disney couldn't copyright characters eternally for anyone other than Disney shareholders.
Not even a remotely imaginative straw-man – but what should I have expected – the presence of other illegality has literally nothing to do with whether a law discriminating against blacks is morally defensible or not. Come up with a more persuasive argument, you can't brush away any law you feel like with a half-arsed analogy to the civil rights movement.