So criminals can now just use some sign language in front of any video camera - a conversation will have been recorded and the police will instead of charging the criminals order a destruction of the evidence and charge the camera owner with a felony.
That doesn't sound like something you'd need a good lawyer for, that sounds like something a law school student that had only been to half their classes should be able to bring up
I don't understand why we need to force more men in to nursing - certainly when I've needed a nurse then I've not cared which sex they were, just as when I've needed a doctor. What improvement does the healthcare system get from male nurses that female nurses can't provide?
>*But in this thread, looking around, some guys are claiming that women aren't good at math.*
Isn't the problem that the spread of achievement, ability, etc., is far greater in men. There are more male geniuses but also far more male fools. Women don't clamour to be recognised as fools though. In schools in my country girls have far out-performed boys in maths for a long time but they still don't choose the "hard" sciences or engineering courses at the same rates as boys; most likely because university level study creams off the top and so exaggerates the difference, leading to sex imbalance in workplace roles that garner people from those university courses.
Certainly in my chosen field whilst there were lots of women who were more intelligent, more studious and with greater achievement than many men (me for example) the couple of people in a thousand that stood out as future leaders in the field were men.
If you can't handle there being a sex-based difference then what are you going to do about autism rates, suicide rates, homelessness rates,
Well if 100 women applied for each position but only 10 men and the candidates were on average equally qualified whether female or male, ie their sex didn't on average make any difference as to their ability to perform, then the number of women would be greater than the number of men. If the numbers are the same then there has been unfair sexual discrimination.
So in this situation did the proportion of school children wishing to follow a particular career path match with the proportions who were accepted in to those roles in companies when ability is accounted for? If not then there was sexual discrimination.
I'd imagine that giving one group preferential treatment, more scholarships to men say, would mean a greater proportion of the suitably skilled were able to achieve a target role and thus discrimination would have occurred.
>"scholarship aimed at single mothers"
Why shouldn't fathers looking after kids on their own have that same opportunity?
>"There is a lack of women in STEM fields."
The corollary of this is that women can uniquely provide skills in STEM fields that men are unable to provide. Yet it's been hotly denied that men can bring anything to any field that women can't (even as a generality by some). So, in what way is there a lack of women? Are we suddenly allowed to say that a person brings skills to the table simply because of their chromosomes? Personally I don't doubt it but it contradicts exactly the express position of many feminists and undermines entirely the basis for equalising the proportion of each sex employed in a particular field.
>"If we were offering incentives to women to become nurses, I would have a problem with this."
Why? Don't we need people to become nurses just as we need people to work in other specialisms?
Suppose practically no women want to be sysadmins, lots of men do and that a certain cadre of nerds (who're perceived as being borderline-autistic) are most able to perform the role; such characters are usually men, these men want to do that job, few women want to do that job
Provided the choice of job candidates is performed fairly why should we rail against the progress in removing discrimination and add in new types of discrimination?
Ladies Nights are discriminatory. I have no problem with them for private businesses, the minute the government starts running them and claiming that they aren't discriminatory or that they somehow are working against discrimination, that's when the government has gone of the rails.
>*one cannot allow anyone else to "dilute" it*
You can't allow it to be genericised, sure. But you can grant a license to anyone to use your trademark and so your argument is moot, the RTM holder can issue a license which avoids any sense of dilution, you'd simply need a sticker "yellow colour used under license from Cocks Inc." so unwary buyers aren't fooled.
You lose trademarks by not paying the renewal fees, it's _almost_ impossible to lose them otherwise.
Why? Under what treaty or agreement would the EU not be able to claim those oilfields? They are British oil fields, hence part of the EU at the moment. What law means that Scotland receives them if it chooses independence? What bargaining power do Scotland have against the united might of the EU if the EU say "lolz, nice try, still ours"?
It's going to be interesting if the vote goes through as "yes". No established currency, no rights under international treaties (but then no obligations, like copyright), no protection from established accords, no monarchy, no armed forces and such. Will be interesting to see, for example, if the Queen allows Scots to resign their posts in UK armed forces and such.
Flat-Earther with incredible eyesight?
>*The United Kingdom is a union of equals*
What utter nonsense. The UK is the union of 3 kingdoms - England, Scotland and Ulster - with a single monarch; it's not a republic of equals or a federation of states who've agreed equal voting rights. If you want that then you need to get rid of the monarchy first.
>*There's no relationship to how fast you go vs. safety.*
So as many people die in porsches travelling 5mph as do at 105mph?
Why not? Doesn't the spirit of the law exist in USA?
In most states law enforcement only need to have a just cause to arrest people on suspicion of crime - someone making a confession and claiming to have clear evidence that they committed a crime seems like just cause to arrest the suspect here.
It seems they must either deny it, and get out losing their record, or confess?
>"Kids in grocery stores crying, yelling, in tantrums on the floor, trying to get their mothers to get them some candy is not a basis for how we should be acting as adults on the internet."
You were doing alright with your argument until this.
1. Sweets are generally bad for you, they contain additives and such that give you no benefit and may be harmful. Excessive processed sugar consumption certainly doesn't seem to help a child. Consuming culturally relevant works may be bad for you, but not in the same way.
2. If you steal sweets from a shop then more have to be made to replace them. If you infringe copyright then there is no noticeable effect on the producer, as on the whole the extra "work" is all done by third parties.
3. Theft of sweets doesn't lead to extra sales, copyright infringement can. It doesn't always but there is an effect in play. Some of the greatest media buyers are also technically copyright infringers.
4. There are some limited ethical reasons for file sharing - one can rip media you own and encode it, but that's a waste of time and energy when compared with torrenting a file that is already prepared and being downloaded by others. Yes, there are ethical reasons to steal sweets - to give someone suffering a diabetic episode - but that's not the situation you offered for comparison so it's a moot point.
5. The socio-political situation is that there is often no more money available for a person to spend on media consumption than is being spent already. You've released a new movie that's made 5 times it's expenditure in the first week, why are you begrudging a poor person consuming it who wouldn't otherwise benefit from the work. With the sweets, you lose sales for sure as the theft prevents those same sweets being sold but that's not at all true with copyright infringement you still have your copy to reproduce as you will. With the media you lose nothing by allowing others to give away copies in a limited manner. [To the extreme it matters of course].
In short you made a cogent argument and then obliterated it with a silly analogy.
Let's look at your universal statement in that argument though:
>*You... are NOT ENTITLED to products or services in which you have not paid money for.*
I disagree that people are not entitled to basic health care (a service) or clean water (a product) because they can't pay for it. You're going to have to come up with a more nuanced argument than that if you want to convince people you're speaking from a position of higher morality.
>*If you are pirating data, you should be admitting to yourself that you are stealing.*
If you're pirating data then you're doing it wrong. You should copy data and - if and only if it's for the greater good - pirate tangible goods instead. If you're a pirate then admit that, if you're [merely] committing the tort of copyright infringement then admit that. Admitting the truth to yourself is better than labelling yourself as a criminal when what you are is a tortfeasant.
>*If you want something so badly, pay for it, or ignore it.*
If you want to take part in the culture of our times and are poor what then? Copyright is such that even when vast, vast, returns have been made far and above the invested amounts, far beyond the expected returns of even the greatest of wages those works that have attained a cultural relevance are still locked up and only those who pay can gain lawful access. This is wrong. Culture is more important than that. Yes it's more important than letting those who're creators of creative works to go without any reward too but the balance has been forced far to one side by crooked dealings leaving an entirely unbalanced system.
Your statement works as well for media conglomerates as for those you try to apply it to - if you want everyone to be able to afford to pay to take part in the creative culture of our times instead of falling to tortuous malfeasance then pay for it. Pay more taxes, pay people on benefits an amount that enables this, pay your workers a high enough minimum that they can take part as consumers in that culture you're peddling. Or, y'know, ignore it and get back to swimming in your vast piles of money.
But what about the poor creators, who're working hard to make ends meet. What about them? Indeed, but nothing you've said helps them either. Little in the system stops them from being exploited to line the pockets of the rich media owners or the copycat corporate machines.
tldr; apart from your analogy, your premises and your conclusion everything pans out. Well done.
>*we can't have a situation where there is no government*
So remind me, if there's still an active, functioning government why is everything being shutdown? Surely if there's a government they can tell all the parks not to be jerks and just open as normal etc.?
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
