Lawtonfogle

But I never read any explanation as to why the dynamics are different. Especially considering that films of other crimes can be porn to the right individual (such as snuff).

College 'kids' are adults and if they act as children it is only because we enable such behavior by coddling them. I wonder if college would be better for most if they lived a year on their own first. I know I would have gotten more out of college if I had a more concrete view of how the world worked (namely the importance of networking and knowing people).

So if I share a video of a murder or theft... or even just view such a video shared by others, I'm complicit in the crime?

Law and order responds after the wrong. I'm talking about protection to prevent the wrong.

The top 3% do pay their fair share. More than their fair share really. It is the .1% or even .01% that draw far more from society than they pay.

To add to this, what about those unable to take care of themselves. Children, the mentally ill, those who are badly addicted, those who are easily taken advantage of (like in borderline elder abuse cases).

When renting out part of your home, does protected status apply? Last I remember if a woman only wants another woman to live in her home that is legal even though gender is a protected class. Only after passing certain limits does protected classes come into play (I think it is if the property being rented isn't one you live in or if you rent to more than 3 people and some other such limits).

And when race is one such aggregate?

So given how little work is done reproducing findings, there is minimal value?

Combined with a bias in family courts, an acceptance of alternate families (so a reduction in social costs of not marrying), and a rise in the acceptance of divorce. Why marry when you can cohabitate in a state without common law marriage. Having kids is still a challenge because if the couple splits custody still has to be decided, but there are a few options for that as well.

Promoting marriage? All I've see is a massive increase in the risk of marrying, especially as a man.

Sounds like saying we already have clear evidence but it'll take time to dig through it so you are now compelled to show us where you hid the body.

Odd that the phone records were needed. If I thought the victim was telling the truth about beimg abused then the records wouldn't matter and if I had reason to doubt them then I don't see matching phone records satisfying the doubt.

I never used that word. I called it harassment, which can come in different varieties.

Upon reviewing my previous response, I don't even see where I made mention of gender even to the extent of a pronoun.

>The original story told about a couple of polite phonecalls where they have requested to talk with her. How does it get described as "harassment"?

As soon as they continued after the very first 'no' it becomes harassment. Imagine this was a work setting, the FBI was a coworker of this individual, and they asked for a date. After the very first "no, please don't bring it up again" it becomes harassment.

I think the difference here is not that it was entrapment, but that it wasn't a crime at all. Unless the law says this crime is strict liability, then the prosecutor would need to show that these individuals intended to commit the crime they were committing.

For example, say you have a bucket in your yard, I go and stick a sign up saying 'Free bucket to good home.' and someone else comes by and grabs the bucket. Focusing only on the third person's actions for a moment, even though they took a bucket that they had no right to take, and they would likely have to give back, they never committed a crime because they never intended to steal the bucket. They only intended to take a bucket being given away freely. (This is different from 'ignorance of the law isn't an excuse'; that would apply if they did intend to steal a bucket but thought stealing wasn't illegal.)

(Now there is still an issue with the government doing something similar with strict liability laws and I'm not sure how that one works out.)

But the damages are still done. By having a library where people can get a book for free instead of buying it, even though there is some throughput limits, they still make it so that the media is no longer consumed.

Imagine a pirating service which ensures that a given file is only being consumed by one machine at a time. So if I want to watch the newest blockbuster, I have to wait my turn, and once watched, I cannot watch it again (without getting in line). In effect, the movie is checked out a single instance at a time, just like how a library checks out a single book at a time.

A pirated book likely came from a purchased original.

Given the extent contracts are abused by the powerful to exploit the weak, I'm thinking your suggestion might be an improvement over the current situation.

>Imagine the same site with pirated high quality scientific books.

Imagine if publishers went and banned libraries, because only those who can afford books should be allowed to read them.

It is my opinion that any research behind a paywall does not exist. If I told you that I have research that showed some effect X, but there was no way for me to make that accessible to the public, no one would put any weight at all behind it (well except for those who really want X to be true). Does it matter if it is a pay wall or if I promise it exists and my girlfriend up in Canada, the one who only visits when you aren't here, has it? No, not really.

>That said, the H1-B gives companies way too much leverage over their workers.

Which is why they need to be done away with. If we still want the talent (and why shouldn't we, brain fill is good), we need a way for them to enter which does not tie them to an employer.

>But seriously, sounds like a "good idea" gone wrong

Don't contribute to stupidity what can adequately be explained by malice, especially when dealing with a massive company who hires quite intelligent individuals.

Lock-in was intended, and then some smart people found not just a way to sell it, but make it look more acceptable even if they were called out on it.

Corporations have spent decades conditioning their users to accept all ToSs and EULAs, using a combination of forbidding the software outright (often with no ability to get a refund) and applying scary language that they have limited the abuse of only as much as they thought would escape the public's notice. Now that their investment has been completed, they want their returns.

My solution to this (and to issues like this outside of software) is extreme but it will fix the problem. When one side creates a contract of any sort (ToS, EULA, phone contract, home buying contract) which primary purpose is to be signed by numerous other individuals who have little to no ability to alter the contract, the other parties are allowed to use lack of understanding to break the entire contract unless the creator can show beyond reasonable doubt (I would use clear and convincing, but that would be abused) that the signer did understand the entirety of the contract.

It would break contract law as we know it, but it would force simple, easy to understand contracts and it would penalize any robo signing practices. (Personal story: last time I went to a phone company, they gave the contract to read on a small device where I could only read 2 lines at a time and where part of the display was broken. I wasn't allowed a print out of the contract until after I signed. I walked away and have to this day not gotten a smartphone because of the downright evil practices of cell phone companies).

One solution would be to not give basic income for children, but to give it to children once they are working age (~16) or when they become an independent adult (18). Everyone gets a certain amount to provide a very basic life on, where they get to decide how their money is spent. If they rather spend their BI on children instead of some other area of life, then that is their choice. If they want both, then they should continue getting a job to acquire funds beyond the BI amount.

Is having a child a basic or a luxury?

This idea seems to be built on a notion that there are needs and that their are wants, and that we are only going to give enough to supply needs. But there are two major underlying problems with this.

First, even if we assume that needs and wants exist, you aren't going to have agreement on what falls in what category. For starters, is having children a need or a luxury? Is a clean place to live a need or a luxury? Is having a healthy food a need or a want?

Second, I'm not sure the division between needs and wants is even real. Yes, you'll die without food in a few weeks, die without water in a few days, and die without air in a few minutes, but what about something that increases ones likelihood of dying in a few years, but not any shorter? For example, a starving person can survive off a very poor diet for a much longer time than with no diet, but if they are missing vital nutrients, they will still eventually die. Or look at loneliness and the negative effects it has on people. You won't die within a year from lack of human contact, but your overall life expectancy will drop greatly (except for infants, who will die from lack of human contact, as shown in a few experiments which scientists are ethically banned from reproducing).

>This article says it's talking about a universal basic income, and makes the usual point that a completely universal, no-strings-attached income is simple to administer, doesn't have poverty traps, etc.

Does anyone advocate giving it to everyone?

What about children? Does a child get the same as an adult?

What about non-citizens who are in the nation legally?

What about non-citizens who are in the nation illegally?

What about citizen children of non-citizens who are in the nation illegally?

There are consequences to saying yes to any of these we need to think through, but perhaps more importantly, is there even a chance of passing some of these (could you imagine the Republican attack on answering yes to either of the last two?).

Once they can read minds, what then? And this isn't just science fiction; I've read reports that a persons inner monologue is soon to be accessible because when you talk in your head, it causes ever so slight commands to be sent to the voice box, which in turn reacts slightly. Not enough to produce sound or even be noticeable to a person, but which technology is being developed to pick up on.

>It would be obstruction, not destruction.

It is obstruction in the same way that requesting a warrant before handing over evidence is obstruction.

>Are men more valuable to the market?

And if so, why? Maybe men and women work equally hard, all else being equal, but in a society where a man's income is used to determine his worth as a person to a greater extent that a woman's income is used to determine her worth, a man will spend more time focusing on improving his income, and thus work in ways that provide more value by sacrificing quality of life (while a woman in such a society would focus on increasing what ever attributes the society judges her worthiness based upon). In such a case, there is clearly sexism, but unequal pay is not the cause, only a symptom, and thus equalizing pay will only cover up a symptom of the deeper problem (and perhaps even exaggerating the problem).