Corporations is another interesting example. Before the recent '1st amendment' expansion the personhood was a fairly reasonable limited designation. Corporations could hold property, have contracts signed in their name, etc. Kinda weird inverse of what is going on here.
I actually wonder what Wired's numbers look like before and after their new 'giant version of mobile page' switch over a few months back. I recall it really irritating desktop/laptop users.
There is at least one other major reason (or set of reasons) for using a feature phone: price and simplicity. Smartphones have come down in cost, but they still can not compare to how cheap a feature phone is to both purchase and use. It is not even just people with tight budgets that go for them, it is also attractive if you needs are fairly straightforward and you do not like wasting money on capabilities that are just a hassle to learn and use anyway.
Or better yet, when people are not using a mobile device, if the side has dedicated compatibility, rank it down. Then maybe we would start to see a decrease in site design where the entire site is mobile oriented regardless of who is looking at it.
Since the case is pulling on examples from humans who have personhood but not self determination, like children they would probably not have the ability to enter into legal contracts, thus can not volunteer.
While people are scoffing at this, we already have the legal framework in place for dealing with entities that have the legal protection of personhood but not full legal rights.
While this is doomed to fail, much of the mocking has chilling similarities to earlier fights for personhood.
Actually, there is some pretty good legal precedent for this to move forward, but there is also precedent for it to fail. Current social attitudes and economic factors (people tend not to get personhood until the value in keeping them subhuman has faded) today indicate it will likely fail, but it would not be without precedent if the judge moves forward or even accepts the arguments. We have been expanding personhood for the last century already.
On the other hand, humans raised without being taught language are also incapable of it. But by virtue of being homo-sapien, they by default get personhood (though likely they become a ward, but still a person).
Anyone who believes we do not have poor in the US has not done enough traveling. Go into some of the deep rural areas and you encounter standards of living quite similar to what you see in the news regarding Africa. It just doesn't get much press and since they are too poor to be online they do not have much of a voice themselves. But they are there.
Yep. Wisdom, logic and reasoning are just no fun. Goooooooooooo team!
So can chimps now be arrested? Sued? Hold a job? Pay taxes? Get married? (Would it be ok if the chimps didn't do same sex marriage?) Hell, if they're legal persons, what's the age of consent for a chimp?
Either you define the rights and obligations which come from being a "legal person", or you are just making shit up as you go, and then you have a legal system based on nothing which can be interpreted.
This is not really the case though. Our legal system has quite a bit in place already for handling those who are 'people' but do not have full rights and obligations. The biggest group would be children, who have a reduced set of rights and responsibilities, but still have personhood when it comes to legal protections and processes. This is also true for people with significant mental handicaps and people unable to communicate (such as being in a coma).
So we already have ample precedent for this type of legal status, and it already extends to humans who are less aware and intelligent than some animals, who are simply grandfathered in due to their parents having such rights.
WTF is the definition of legal person at this point?
Well, this is something we are constantly reexamining. Over the last century and a half we moved women, blacks, and children from the 'not person' to 'person' category, with children still holding restricted rights. As we learn more and more about brains, as a society we have to ask some rather difficult questions. Originally black people were not considered 'people' due to the belief their brains were more 'animal than man', which turned out to be BS. Today we are, bit by bit, discovering that quite a few animals are closer to us in awareness than we used to believe, often with more awareness than individual humans that are protected. Over the next century, the definition will probably continue to shift, though the final push, like so many cases of rights, will probably come from economic forces rather than ethical ones. As long as there is so much profit to be made, they will continue to be animals. When that fades away, people will magically decide that they were people all along and how horrible we were in the past for thinking otherwise.
Yeah. Having less than ideal limits on how we can treat each other is a lot better than the the 'no legal protections' setups certain people have lived under in our past (and in many places in the world, present).
Nah, no worries there. Research will just shift to using a greater number of poor people in the 3rd world. Benefits are best when you can offload the costs onto populations of people elsewhere.
*nod* that is the legal strategy they are following, treating chimps as 'people' but not people with the ability to exersize their legal rights, so like children or mentally impaired individuals.
For the moment people will generally not bother, but as more programming moves under this model and people start to become annoyed at managing multiple subscriptions (each of which only has one or two shows they want) we will probably see an increase again.
This touches on why this trend might not be a good thing long term, with exclusive content you end up getting to choose between being locked in to one set or subscribing to multiple bundled services. In the past you would, on rare occasions, see people with multiple cable subscriptions due to some edge cases they wanted to be able to watch and they were pretty annoyed about this. However if we increasingly tie shows to services, it is going to get harder and harder to subscribe to a single feed and get all the stuff you want.
I also suspect that while the specific topic was new, the cop has probably seen similar alcohol fueled fights over other things, for instance, sports teams.
I think the issue is not entitlement of the paying customer, but the paying customer's ideas about what other people should be getting. It is one thing to want something, it is another to want others to not have it.
Good point regarding that demographic. I wonder if Valve could do some fine tuning so that playing those games a certain amount also marks someone as a 'real' account.
Unfortunately Americans are really big on 'unlimited' plans and cutting them out would upset customers, or cause them to switch carriers to one who does still offer such pricing schemes.
The other danger in a market based solution here is then you have private entities who have the power of life and death over your citizens. One of the classic ways to deal with cities you do not like is to cut off their water and give it to someone more loyal/allied.
*nod* if california was a video game, desalination plants would be that item no one builds because the cost vs benefit is so terrible, unless they have reached that stage in the game where money is effectively unlimited (because balance is difficult), which does not really happen in the real world.
They are good ideas, but have some significant problems. When people talk about the desalination plants, the problem they tend to leave off (or not be aware of) is that even building a whole array of them barely makes a dent in California's water usage. They can help the areas right around them since water can be produced locally rather than piped or shipped in, but they just don't produce that much water and are expensive to construct and maintain.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations is another interesting example. Before the recent '1st amendment' expansion the personhood was a fairly reasonable limited designation. Corporations could hold property, have contracts signed in their name, etc. Kinda weird inverse of what is going on here.
I actually wonder what Wired's numbers look like before and after their new 'giant version of mobile page' switch over a few months back. I recall it really irritating desktop/laptop users.
This highlights the fault in optimizing for mobile browsing through, 50% of your traffic is not coming from such devices.
There is at least one other major reason (or set of reasons) for using a feature phone: price and simplicity. Smartphones have come down in cost, but they still can not compare to how cheap a feature phone is to both purchase and use. It is not even just people with tight budgets that go for them, it is also attractive if you needs are fairly straightforward and you do not like wasting money on capabilities that are just a hassle to learn and use anyway.
Or better yet, when people are not using a mobile device, if the side has dedicated compatibility, rank it down. Then maybe we would start to see a decrease in site design where the entire site is mobile oriented regardless of who is looking at it.
Since the case is pulling on examples from humans who have personhood but not self determination, like children they would probably not have the ability to enter into legal contracts, thus can not volunteer.
While people are scoffing at this, we already have the legal framework in place for dealing with entities that have the legal protection of personhood but not full legal rights.
While this is doomed to fail, much of the mocking has chilling similarities to earlier fights for personhood.
Actually, there is some pretty good legal precedent for this to move forward, but there is also precedent for it to fail. Current social attitudes and economic factors (people tend not to get personhood until the value in keeping them subhuman has faded) today indicate it will likely fail, but it would not be without precedent if the judge moves forward or even accepts the arguments. We have been expanding personhood for the last century already.
On the other hand, humans raised without being taught language are also incapable of it. But by virtue of being homo-sapien, they by default get personhood (though likely they become a ward, but still a person).
Anyone who believes we do not have poor in the US has not done enough traveling. Go into some of the deep rural areas and you encounter standards of living quite similar to what you see in the news regarding Africa. It just doesn't get much press and since they are too poor to be online they do not have much of a voice themselves. But they are there.
So can chimps now be arrested? Sued? Hold a job? Pay taxes? Get married? (Would it be ok if the chimps didn't do same sex marriage?) Hell, if they're legal persons, what's the age of consent for a chimp?
Either you define the rights and obligations which come from being a "legal person", or you are just making shit up as you go, and then you have a legal system based on nothing which can be interpreted.
This is not really the case though. Our legal system has quite a bit in place already for handling those who are 'people' but do not have full rights and obligations. The biggest group would be children, who have a reduced set of rights and responsibilities, but still have personhood when it comes to legal protections and processes. This is also true for people with significant mental handicaps and people unable to communicate (such as being in a coma).
So we already have ample precedent for this type of legal status, and it already extends to humans who are less aware and intelligent than some animals, who are simply grandfathered in due to their parents having such rights.
WTF is the definition of legal person at this point?
Well, this is something we are constantly reexamining. Over the last century and a half we moved women, blacks, and children from the 'not person' to 'person' category, with children still holding restricted rights. As we learn more and more about brains, as a society we have to ask some rather difficult questions. Originally black people were not considered 'people' due to the belief their brains were more 'animal than man', which turned out to be BS. Today we are, bit by bit, discovering that quite a few animals are closer to us in awareness than we used to believe, often with more awareness than individual humans that are protected. Over the next century, the definition will probably continue to shift, though the final push, like so many cases of rights, will probably come from economic forces rather than ethical ones. As long as there is so much profit to be made, they will continue to be animals. When that fades away, people will magically decide that they were people all along and how horrible we were in the past for thinking otherwise.
Yeah. Having less than ideal limits on how we can treat each other is a lot better than the the 'no legal protections' setups certain people have lived under in our past (and in many places in the world, present).
Nah, no worries there. Research will just shift to using a greater number of poor people in the 3rd world. Benefits are best when you can offload the costs onto populations of people elsewhere.
*nod* that is the legal strategy they are following, treating chimps as 'people' but not people with the ability to exersize their legal rights, so like children or mentally impaired individuals.
For the moment people will generally not bother, but as more programming moves under this model and people start to become annoyed at managing multiple subscriptions (each of which only has one or two shows they want) we will probably see an increase again.
This touches on why this trend might not be a good thing long term, with exclusive content you end up getting to choose between being locked in to one set or subscribing to multiple bundled services. In the past you would, on rare occasions, see people with multiple cable subscriptions due to some edge cases they wanted to be able to watch and they were pretty annoyed about this. However if we increasingly tie shows to services, it is going to get harder and harder to subscribe to a single feed and get all the stuff you want.
That is a good point, though even within that, the threat passes right through hackers again.
I also suspect that while the specific topic was new, the cop has probably seen similar alcohol fueled fights over other things, for instance, sports teams.
The danger the NSA presents is largely symbolic and philosophical.
The danger presented by script kitties and hackers is much more likely to actually effect your life and property.
I think the issue is not entitlement of the paying customer, but the paying customer's ideas about what other people should be getting. It is one thing to want something, it is another to want others to not have it.
Good point regarding that demographic. I wonder if Valve could do some fine tuning so that playing those games a certain amount also marks someone as a 'real' account.
Unfortunately Americans are really big on 'unlimited' plans and cutting them out would upset customers, or cause them to switch carriers to one who does still offer such pricing schemes.
The other danger in a market based solution here is then you have private entities who have the power of life and death over your citizens. One of the classic ways to deal with cities you do not like is to cut off their water and give it to someone more loyal/allied.
*nod* if california was a video game, desalination plants would be that item no one builds because the cost vs benefit is so terrible, unless they have reached that stage in the game where money is effectively unlimited (because balance is difficult), which does not really happen in the real world.
They are good ideas, but have some significant problems. When people talk about the desalination plants, the problem they tend to leave off (or not be aware of) is that even building a whole array of them barely makes a dent in California's water usage. They can help the areas right around them since water can be produced locally rather than piped or shipped in, but they just don't produce that much water and are expensive to construct and maintain.