HN user
it is by default legal until we decide to make it illegal.
No, it's legal because of the Federal Arbitration Act passing in 1925. Prior to that, waiving of such rights "in advance by agreement" was explicitly disallowed, as SCOTUS determined in Insurance Company v. Morse (1874).
The idea is that the sound of an impact drill adds to the noise pollution of a supposedly "natural" area, and that they're "too easy" so they result in a proliferation of bolts in the rock. There's a lot of argument back and forth on the subject in places like Yosemite, where it sees so much traffic that it could hardly be called natural anymore. Personally, I'd rather hear 12 seconds of a Li-ion rotohammer than 30 minutes of some dude whacking a hand drill with a hammer, and since they make better holes, a rotohammer drills more symmetrical holes and is going to let the bolt seat better and it won't result in a proliferation of cratered out rock where old bolts pull out and have to be replaced by drilling new holes next to it. It's a touchy subject for a lot of folks. Some don't like "permanent" protection at all, but in places they don't allow bolts you end up with "temporary permanent" nylon slings tied around rocks all over the place. Doesn't really seem better.
The US doctrine have always been fleet warfare with large formations of US ships sailing alone on the open sea or in some water they have complete dominance over
One of the problems with the US Navy over the last 70+ years has been a tendency act as if they're still fighting WW2. It shows up in a lot of places in interesting ways. Another example is the USMC's fixation with hot beach amphibious assault, a tactic which is completely outdated with the advent of modern air power, and which hasn't actually been utilized since the Incheon landing in 1950.
I wonder why signatures replaced signet rings?
As the need for legal documentation spread downward from the upper classes, they needed an identification method that anyone could use, and wasn't limited to people who could afford to have a unique piece of jewelry crafted.
The problem is that a lot of people aren't capable of working remotely and/or treat work from home as a day off.
Well, that's half the problem. The other half is the tendency of many managers to view all requests to work from home as a request to stay home and goof off on the clock. I've worked places where the apparent measure of productivity is how many aggregate ass-in-seat hours the department put in.
closing the fuel cycle loop in a way that is proliferation resistant
Isn't simply using a non-PUREX reprocessing method sufficient? Realistically, a "nuclear club" nation like the US/France/GB only needs to ensure that the reprocessed fuel contains enough non-Pu239 isotopes that any attempt at a bomb with stolen Pu would necessarily fizzle. The fact that the nation itself could (theoretically) produce Pu239 via the process and cause "proliferation" seems far fetched in the absence of the Cold War level rivalry that was the original proliferation impetus. Warheads are expensive. Nobody who already has a bunch of them already is really interested in making more.
Turns out the answer was _always_ "No."
My experience has been the opposite. I bought a Pebble so I could know whether I had to put down my tools, pull out my phone, and answer a call from my boss; or if I could just ignore yet another call from an idiot coworker.
When Pebble sold out to Garmin
I wish. Garmin might have done something with it. They sold out to FitBit, whose major motivation was the elimination of a competitor.
no, it just prolongs the inevitable. The first player to gain an edge on the others still eventually wins, it's just that it takes hours instead of minutes.
That's not the reason. Benadryl being in blister packs long predates its use in meth cooking, like by 30 years. The real reason is more likely marketing. If they sold them in a bottle, the amount they charge for those few tiny pills would seem outrageous. A blister pack gives the packaging more volume.
But reading McMH does not compete with browsing those real estate listings. So it's probably fair use.
No facet of the fair use defense is based on the fact that one is exploiting a market for the work that the rightsholder currently isn't. On the contrary, the fact that one is exploiting any market at all with the work is a strike against any fair use defense.
due to flaws in their reasoning or refusal to consistently apply their own reasoning for personal reasons
That's not the entirety of it. The problem is that these ethical problems exist within a certain societal framework, and that framework is made of multiple overlapping assumptions, habits, traditions, and expectations, some of them contradictory. Two people's axioms might be identical, but they may come to two opposite conclusions over whether these identical axioms apply to a given situation based on how they each subjectively weight the assorted related circumstances. They'll BOTH claim that the other's bad conclusion is due to "flaws in their reasoning", and can still both have perfect internally consistent reasoning for their own conclusion. Ethics isn't physics. There often ISN'T a right or wrong answer, only a variation in assumptions.
Yep. Though as with most things, it's not so much about changing people's minds as it is waiting for the old folks to die:
Approval of black-white marriage is higher among younger Americans, and lowest among those 65 and older
The physical vinyl won't outlast your digital, it'll just fail more gracefully, slowly losing fidelity every time you scrape it with a needle. You're just replacing a small chance of catastrophic failure with a guaranteed gradual failure.
Thing is, it arrest actually IS a problem. It's often said that any decent prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Throw in a dash of racism or classism, and you've got a recipe for sending lots of people to jail who didn't commit the crime. Every step of the way needs to responsible and honest in order to mitigate this problem as much as possible. Can't just let cops do whatever they please under the premise that the prosecutor's office will figure out the truth.
The way I see it, they probably did it somewhat incrementally. To some degree, they've ALWAYS programmed the ECUs "to the test", because isn't that basically what the authorities want? A system that meets standards X, Y, and Z, as verified by a test of X, Y, and Z? What got them into trouble was the fact that ECUs became more and more sophisticated, allowing them to gradually isolate X, Y, and Z into ever-shrinking "islands" of compliance. It was tolerated for so long that both engineering and management probably became accustomed to cheating the test to some degree, so when the standards became even more stringent, they basically saw nothing wrong with creating a special "clean" ECU profile narrowly tailored to the specific parameters of the test procedure. Granted, they knew they were cheating, but I think when you're inside the corporate bubble and everyone's operating on the premise that cheating has always been tolerated on the test, it becomes harder to be the guy that says "this is too much".
There should probably be a restriction on offering plea bargains, basically eliminating "plead to a lesser charge". The DA should be allowed to prosecute no more than the charges they want you to plead to. Piling on charges is coercion, threatening a good chance of ruining your entire life vs. a guarantee of only ruining a little of it.
In jurisdictions friendly to the US anti-pirating effort, they've largely adopted a legal standard of "I know pirating when I see it" rather than following the strict definition outlined by the law. "Making available" has come to be interpreted as "telling someone who to ask about what a pirated (whatever) looks like so you can find it yourself".
Indeed, Martha Stewart is a prime example of how NOT to deal with the SEC. Turns out she wasn't guilty of insider trading, but she still went to jail for lying to the SEC about the trades in the first place. They take that very seriously.
YMMV with Nextdoor . THe only thing I can vouch for about my neighbors on Nextdoor is that they're all batshit insane racists.
The percentage of alcohol users (ie almost everybody) who become alcoholic is quite low. The percentage of heroin or meth users who become heroin or meth addicts is very high indeed.
Do you have a source for this? Every study I've seen shows addiction rates among users in the 10-15% range for all three.
I've seen people drink themselves over the course of a year into a state of health similar to what you allude to with "a year of meth, oh my". I've also known meth users who were highly functional and used it for years with no significant health issues. All in all, I'd say they're about equal.
There are sanctions in place against individual Venezuelan officials for their part in human rights abuses, and a general embargo on arms, but other than that, no. The US is still Venezuela's largest trade partner.
The practice of wearing a surgical mask in asian countries is far more than 10 years old. I saw it in Hong Kong and Shanghai in the 70's.
Most of the power generation reactors in the US are privately owned, so probably about the same.
"Irradiated" and "radioactive" are not the same thing. An irradiated sandwich poses absolutely no threat to its consumer.
He's only declining FIELD sobriety tests. I know of no state that automatically pulls licenses for refusal to play along with a FIELD sobriety test.
Yeah, you kind of have to keep the context in mind when reading about Feynman's "pick up artist" stories. Much of it takes place not only in the context of the "hook up scene", but also in the hook up scene fifty-plus years ago. The guy giving him lessons in how to pick up girls was basically telling him there's a certain process to the hook up scene, and part of it involved women taking advantage of men who will allow it. The key bit of advice was to recognize when they were pushing for freebies, and to push right back. It established a relationship of equals, which then had a fairly good chance of resulting in the casual sex both parties were ultimately looking for. From our perspective some of the behavior seems pretty crass, but that's because the subtleties of the hook up scene change over time. The cultural anchors have shifted, and what was once simply an offhand citation of the normative gender roles now sounds downright boorish.
"Coercion" is specifically the use of threats. "Inducement" is a broader category that includes other methods like begging, badgering, and wheedling.
I've seen several critical opinions of Stanford Prison and Milgram, and they laid out all their objections. Do you have a link to something that lays out specific objections to the way Rat Park was conducted?
Higher pay doesn't address the problem with cops. They pay cops VERY well in my city, and yet they are still in the news constantly with the same sort of antics. The problem is that the job of law enforcement is BORING. There's simply very little intellectual challenge to driving around all day looking for trouble. Beyond the occasional zen master, you're going to end up with primarily one general kind of person who can tolerate being in law enforcement, and it's not the sort of person who craves sophisticated intellectual stimulation.