I did, in fact, specifically mention that scenario. That would be due process for a criminal infraction which is the known (and once again, acknowledged by me) exception to the human right in question. The post I was replying to, however, did not mention due process or indeed anything that would normally be a criminal infraction. Also, seizing a foreigners passport issued by their own country is extremely unusual for non-criminal cases and even many criminal ones in most countries. In any case, please refer to article 13 of the universal declaration of human rights for what I was talking about.

Let's be clear here. I am very, very much against littering. I was also on an organ transplant waiting list and almost certainly would have died during the nearly decade long wait I would have had to go through if I didn't end up getting one without the waiting list. So, from a selfish utilitarian perspective, organ banks that remove the organs of litterers to provide to transplant patients would have been of great benefit to me. So understand where I am coming from when I say that is a morally repugnant idea.

All that is what you would expect, and your answer is a fine answer to the original poster. My post though, was in response to Bert64 and was to remind them of what the original poster was actually asking. I personally have not been to London in forever.

OK. So we'll just ignore the fact that the time frame up for discussion was 5 years ago, but somehow I'm the one being "revisionist" when you move it to 10-15 years ago? OK, let's go back three times longer.

15 years ago, we already had things like Siri and Watson. Various kinds of computer generated art had been around for decades and "filters" and other "intelligent" tools were all over the place in all kinds of graphics software, editing video live, etc. Sure, turning your face into Shrek, or an anime character, or aging or de-aging it live was still a couple of years away at that point, but the writing on the wall was clear from what was available that such things were right around the corner. So, yeah, I am very confident saying that the Slashdot crowd would not have been poo-pooing things that largely already existed at that time and were clearly being improved on constantly.

I will add the caveat that I suppose I am being a bit of a snob when I talk about the Slashdot crowd. I mean the actual, real, tech types here. I am excluding the ones who were posting serialized porn, ASCII nudes, thousand page posts of nothing but swastikas, etc. Or just people I consider not really worth considering. Sturgeon's Law applies here.

As for the product being terrible. I call it that because it is. Once it stops constantly giving me answers that make very basic errors, giving replies that contradict themselves, telling me at the start that "no, X is not the case", then giving all the facts that show that X is the case, etc. then maybe I won't find it to be so terrible. As it is, we keep seeing, over and over and over again articles about lawyers getting in trouble for submitting briefs citing cases that don't exist. How hard is it to not cite something that doesn't exist? Sure, it's improving. The fact that it may be good in the future does not make it good now, however.

Because of context. The AC said he was MAGA and he is not. I pointed out that he is not. It matters because that was what was being discussed.

I believe the standard on that the courts have normally upheld is that you have no requirement to provide an ID, but you do have to provide your name and address even without probable cause.

Yeah, I think that's one where they're going to find that a lot of members of their MAGA "big tent" are not going to be so super enthusiastic.

The reasons not to cover both the free speech parts and establishment of religion parts of the first amendment. Some object just because it is forced speech and it's creepy and forcing it is exactly counter to the fundamental principles of the country. Some object because they follow a religion that has prohibitions against idolatry and it counts as idolatry. If you look at the history (or at least claims about the history) of Christianity in Roman times, one of the causes of conflict between Christianity and the pre-Christian Roman empire was exactly that sort of conflict. The Christians would not pray to the Emperor or the Roman state, and they would not take the out that Jews in the Roman Empire supposedly did, which was to include a prayer for (rather than to) the emperor/state in their services. Supposedly, those early Christians refused to do either. A more general religious objection is, of course, the "under god" part which basically makes it a forced prayer by some perspectives. If not a forced prayer, it still forces a religious position.

To be fair, plenty of US schools have been having children do those in the morning for decades. Technically, they don't have to. Except, for some reason, kids who don't still keep getting illegally punished for it and it has to keep going back to the Supreme Court.

I really only remember one of those parties making a big deal about being the "party of small government".

You seem to be entirely missing the point. I will spell it out for you: You argued that income inequality is not bad and, by extension, that those on the low end of the equation actually have it just as good as those on the high end. So, if that's the case, then those on the high end should have no problem giving up their wealth. Obviously that's not happening and the obvious reason why is because it's not actually so great being on the low end of extreme wealth inequality.

To be fair, for clip shows, the SG-1 clip shows were usually fairly well done recaps and there weren't really that many compared to other episodes. They even did episode 200 as a clip show that wasn't really a clip show.

Yes?

Oh, I don't know. It's kind of fun to compete with your friends on how many minutes into the movie you can accurately guess what the tweeest will be.

Need to qualify that a bit I think. I mean, it certainly does not need to be someone Indian, but I think most people do tend to blame their employer when they, out of the blue, decide to replace you when someone they think is better comes along. Clearly one can question if the feeling is justified, but many people certainly feel this way. As it stands, many people feel like companies are absolutely full of crap when they do all that team building stuff and talk about loyalty, etc. but then turn around and discard people the moment it's even slightly convenient.

Of course, from a practical point of view, employees, especially longer-term ones, also recognize it as a really stupid move when companies do this. I mean, it depends on the job but, in many places of employment, regardless of how attractive their resume looks, most employees take years to actually become good at their jobs. Not to mention all the costs of onboarding, etc. So employees often are actually correct to think that their employers are idiots for simply replacing employees with the next shiny object to come along. Especially when the paradigm the employers are encouraging is one where that shiny new employee is probably angling to leave for the very next available slightly better job.

Speaking of "mentally sick"...