fineman

21 ms·

151.
by fineman 11y ago
I'm pretty sure you have enough data to know that that argument is actually bunk in this case. It's not like teens (and the poor, etc) are saving up to afford condoms and only having sex when they can afford them. The profusion of
152.
by fineman 11y ago
What lumps? That's the problem.
153.
by fineman 11y ago
No, it's actually more than appropriate to point it out because the point is that diffusion of responsibility easily ends up (to those involved) justifying mass murder. That shows that it of course justifies everything lesser to them a
154.
by fineman 11y ago
The communication is two-way. You need to broadcast if you want to make a request, ACK packets, etc. Your "totally silent" idea would only work if you were just trying to listen to unencrypted communications of the Starbucks WiFi.
155.
by fineman 11y ago
It doesn't matter if the actions of the government are (by some technicality we wouldn't accept from a five-year old) legal, if we don't want that behavior anyways. Government rules by the mandate of the people. And we don&#x
156.
by fineman 11y ago
Fortunately. Only battles hard-fought are valued. If congress caved for a few years until this blew over, nothing would really change. And ultimately only strong client-side communication schemes (encryption+identity+etc) will solve the pro
157.
by fineman 11y ago
1) It's not related to bitcoin energy usage, which is designed to be high. This is based on the current best science has to offer in making things cheap. The 100x multiple is to the cost of normal computation. Normal, unsecured, visibl
158.
by fineman 11y ago
> So the ad will be much, much louder. And you figure that'll make the ad-haters click it more? Also, that 10cent ad is much more ripe for the picking than the 1cent one. All of a sudden you're attracting click-fraud attention
159.
by fineman 11y ago
I see it more as either end (no government involvement, marriage is religious only or no church involvement, marriage is civil only) would satisfy the OP. The middle-ground is the actual opposite to both ends, in that marriage isn't
160.
by fineman 11y ago
The bigger problem is that it just doesn't work Even if we posit that we can be extra-rough in screening because we need the best for $GOOD_ENOUGH_REASON. The "bad guys" know that the polygraph is nearly worthless. They know
161.
by fineman 11y ago
It'll only make it worse for the accused if we stop (as we have) enforcing the right to speedy trials. The real problem is that there aren't any downsides for prosecutors when they overreach. It's perfectly fair that they g
162.
by fineman 11y ago
If there is real consensus on what should happen then nobody is managing, things are just happening. But "managing by consensus" is forcing everyone to say they agree (hah!) about what the manager has already decided on. Depending
163.
by fineman 11y ago
But, the "reasonable person" referenced in so many laws does recognize idiom. If I say "I'm going to fuck your shit up", literally that sentence is either a homosexual come-on or means nothing - but idiomatically it
164.
by fineman 11y ago
Sorry. Carry on. :) And yes, they are a subjective tool for punishing the unpopular.
165.
by fineman 11y ago
As I said elsewhere, when these comments come out in any general prison thread I support them. When they only come out when bankers are mentioned, I do not. And, philosophical questions of free will tend to be a waste of time to consider. I
166.
by fineman 11y ago
Did they intend the crime? And their only defense is "The other guy was doing it too"? Oh well. As long as we prosecute as many people in their position as possible it doesn't seem to be a problem if we miss some. It's o
167.
by fineman 11y ago
The thing is, the banker (or other white-collar criminal) is the only one who planned it. They, more than the thugs imho, should be locked away because they're predators not just opportunists. And maybe we could spare the cage... But a
168.
by fineman 11y ago
There are no public spaces on the internet. This isn't a nitpick - it gets to the core of the censorship issue. If Twitter and Facebook want to ban something, they already can. And do. As for your statement idea - I personally don&#x27
169.
by fineman 11y ago
No, not really. It's putting the mentally ill and irrational ones in a cage that's a fucking disgrace. The bankers know what they do.
170.
by fineman 11y ago
> At least then the punishment is in the same unit of measurement as the crime No, not really. The crime inflicted homelessness, multiple jobs to feed your family, depression, broken marriages, suicide, etc. If there's no downside t
171.
by fineman 11y ago
Argument. :) Tautologically, you're right. Liberal is people who wouldn't do this, therefore... But, of people who would self-identify as liberal how many are in fact closet authoritarians? Lots!
172.
by fineman 11y ago
That seems reasonable - when guards are tried for kidnapping when it's discovered that their prison was holding an innocent.
173.
by fineman 11y ago
If only prosecutors would be jailed for double the term of anyone we could prove they were unreasonable persecuting. But unfortunately, they have literally zero consequences.
174.
by fineman 11y ago
The bankers are the ones I think it would work for. They understand risk analysis and it's all slow, reasoned, crime. Not like crimes of passion.
175.
by fineman 11y ago
There are seven billion people and maybe 200 'powers'. What's the chance any, let alone yours is doing the exact thing, in the exact way, that you prioritize highest? Also, agitation is what we call speech we don't like.
176.
by fineman 11y ago
They do? I imagine they already have a way to block shows with sex. So if you're past that and can see the show at all, it seems moot. Also, all these things are "good ideas", but can you imagine going to your boss and saying
177.
by fineman 11y ago
With an analogy to open-source, my failed projects (like we're talking about here) fall largely into two distinct categories. Those that I never started, or were totally half-baked, or turned out to trivial - the uninteresting or incom
178.
by fineman 11y ago
So sure, where someone puts their name on it go to their house, haul them to court, and threaten them with jail/compensation unless they remove/repent certain things. But when there is no identity and you could never find one do y
179.
by fineman 11y ago
Sure, there are limits of acceptable speech and those are even far below what you and I would call hate speech. But wasting too much (any) time of the issue of what we should ban misses the issue that ultimately we can't really ban muc
180.
by fineman 11y ago
Bullets kill, which is unfair if you think about it. Why don't we organize a circle and come to a consensus that they really shouldn't because it's often used to silence valid discourse? ... That's also why we shouldn&#x

More ›