HN user
I respectfully disagree. There are conflicting provisions under law, but the widely accepted standard is a declaration "by a qualified medical professional"[1]As another comment here helpfully points out, there are scenarios such a person going missing for a legally mandated number of years before being declared legally dead[2]
[1] http://tiny.cc/mbzzfz [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_death
I'm not fully convinced the courts got this one completely right.
This is a very interesting legal argument and lays emphasis on the need for legislators to express their intentions in writing more fully as opposed to writing laws with such loose and widely applicable terms such as "Life" without giving the term or their intent in using it more context.
If, as the Judge argues, that "he did not legally die as his presence in this courtroom indicates":
1. He's indicating the existence of a written law stating that a person may only die once.
2.Additionally, there are actually legal provisions that delegate to the medically accepted definition of "Death" instead of deciding it themselves.
3. The Judge indicates that ruling in the plaintiffs favor would cause chaos for situations where medically induced resurrections would confuse laws from insurance to banking. That is not the plaintiffs burden to bear. That does not sound like a valid reason to rule on the interpretation of a law.
Finally, and i believe the most important part here: The US Constitution lays liberty and freedom at the heart of individual rights conferred upon people from God or a superior force. All laws enforced by the Government must be explicitly legislated within these bounds since it prevents the default case moving from "Individual God given rights, unless expressly regulated within constitutional boundaries" to "Rights conferred by the Government discretion" -> The second case is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.
The burden of legislation (And clearly elucidating intent) is upon the Legislative body. By leaving ambiguous the part within the letter of the law that regulates individual liberties for individuals found guilty of a crime, the Legislative has "given up" their jurisdiction in the edge case scenario which is in front of the court since it is "undefined" - This would have been a great case for the courts to weigh in and restrict legislative over reach and force more clearly written laws.
For those who think this is picking on too many nits - it sets precedent. A better example for argument might be the tax code and the popular saying that there is no living person capable of declaring that they are fully operating within the letter of the tax code due to the many levels of discretionary interpretation it allows.
It's amazing to me how most of these predictions refrain from calling out the single largest polluters in the world, China, from changing their behavior or doing anything substantial. In particular, this paragraph at the end:
In Chicago Thursday, he prosecuted a moral argument that implicates university administrators who refuse to divest from fossil fuels, journalists who fail to fact-check false statements made by political candidates, and executives of fossil fuel companies who continue to pursue activities that are exacerbating climate change—especially those who mislead the public about those effects.
Really? Can you, as a man of science stand behind such vitriol as an outburst for what is arguably at best a theory with a lot of room for error? Specifically:
"The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero," Anderson said
Based on WHAT? This man is making a claim for the complete wipe out of roughly seven million cubic miles of ice in the next three years? Even if one were to be charitable and entertain a massive error margin on this claim, based on data about the polar cycles it seems extremely unlikely. This is nothing but an attempt to use "Science" to create panic.
I strongly agree that we need to do more on the environment, but there's got to be a better answer than killing off a major chunk of the commercial markets and industry that have contributed to the single most prosperous period in human history. Can scientists please not make recommendations on policy? I'd love to hear scientific solutions . . just the other day, there was a discussion here on HN about using energy from a nuclear reactor to recycle atmospheric carbons. Practical or not, i'd love to see us innovate our way out of this hole while continuing to be reasonably responsible with our environmental decisions.
Personally, i found the series on HBO to have been poorly researched and even more poorly delivered in execution.
A whole part of dealing with Russians as well as a large part of how their policies are shaped can be understood through culture. The characteristic bent in mannerisms that value "honor", "masculinity", less emphasis on the exact and more on "estimates" while working through problems etc. Most people who've dealt with the Russians will agree, that this series came across as British propaganda, badly inserting their societal structures to communicate the events flowing in another, completely different structure. The main character looked like a poor Austin Powers impersonator playing a Russian.
As an example, the Female Scientist, Ulana . . i have no problem with the producers exercising creative freedom to designate her character as the substitute for the hundreds of other scientists who worked on the project, but in doing so, wildly misrepresented the role of women in Russian society during those times.
The choice of English as a language itself . . fine. What the producers can't seem to grasp is the delivery of Russian is aggressive. You don't make statements in tense situations with the British smooth tongue. That does not serve the understanding of the situations during those times very well.
I could go on about the sheer lack of patriotism displayed by any of the main characters to the point where it felt as though it was forbidden when in reality, anyone who's lived through those times and interacted informally with these people knows the opposite is true, but i repeat myself.
Pardon the rage, but this blog is simply a rant masquerading as technical opinion.
Laser printers do NOT have better quality to a comparable inkjet printer. This is what happens when individuals with expertise in a specialized area (such as programming), think that gives them some right to pass off opinion as fact in other fields, such as printing economics or procurement.
For those curious about the details, the industry has been more or less disrupted with the new generation of tank printers. Epson and HP even have begun offering printers with massive ink tanks that bring down the cost of prints to much lower than a US cent. You can do even better than that with bulk buys or sourcing the ink from discount stores, better sources than open retail.
Also, you “absolutely don’t” need to print every page in color, but it makes it a whole lot better if you do. Once you’re used to the difference in quality, there’s very little else that will feel as good. This is personal preference of course and if your requirements at present are only black and white documents, those will look a lot better with the higher dpi prints too.
There’s another thing to be said about titles such as “no good reason to ever do x” ; Just because one person in a narrow minded existence sees no reason to, that doesn’t mean there’s never a good reason to. This toxic BS is what makes the tech industry so hard to have constructive conversations in.
How is using a nuke to kill people different from any other bomb (Apart from the obvious immediate scale)? The most lethal air raids were a result of more conventional warheads : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan
And yes, this weapon put an end to the massive spilling of blood during WW2 in Japan. In case you didn't read the story before writing this comment here's the quote that reinforces what the reality for the soldiers there would have been: > "In the street, the first thing he saw was a squad of soldiers who had been burrowing into the hillside opposite, making one of the thousands of dugouts in which the Japanese apparently intended to resist invasion, hill by hill, life for life; the soldiers were coming out of the hole, where they should have been safe, and blood was running from their heads, chests, and backs. They were silent and dazed."
They very much intended to make it a long, slow, bloody combat until this episode.