If you are relying on trust for encryption, then you simply can never trust it
Don't challenge MLB if you know what's good for you.
I don't know what you're getting at because "challenge MLB" can have any of several meanings. If you start your own league unaffiliated with MLB, do you "challenge MLB"?
Major League Baseball has copyright over broadcasts of matches between MLB clubs or between clubs in MLB-affiliated minor leagues. It does not have copyright over broadcasts of baseball matches in other leagues. Video game publishers, on the other hand, control which leagues are even allowed to exist.
Where does copyright infringement enter into this?
Copyright infringement is an example of a crime-or-tort that's similar to theft but not the same as theft. I was using it to introduce tax evasion, another crime that's similar to theft but not the same as theft.
Really? Is there any evidence of this? I have serious doubts that servers and food preparers were any good at this even before the whole GF craze. Just look at how it is for people with severe peanut allergies today: everyone's heard about it now, and knows how dangerous and life-threatening it is for these people to consume them, yet we still have reports of restaurants being sloppy and someone having an attack or even dying because of this. You just can't trust a bunch of underpaid fools in a restaurant kitchen to not cross-contaminate foods, unless that restaurant explicitly specializes in food free of a certain allergen (like a gluten-free bakery for instance). People like that really shouldn't be eating out at all; it's just not safe.
To help you understand, we will first need to understand your English proficiency. Of the following phrases, which is the first to sound ungrammatical to you? That'll help me craft an explanation.
A. Researchers "who test the theories"
B. Researchers "who test the theories in games"
C. Researchers "who test the theories in game after game"
D. Researchers "who test the theories in game after callus-creating game"
Exhibit B, human nature
From the linked page:
I guess it's human nature to charge for human nature.
Why do people care about sports at all? Why do the Olympic Games exist?
One possible angle that I might accept is that unlike well-known ball sports, notable video games are proprietary. A video game's publisher has state-backed power to dictate whether, how, and by whom its game shall be played in public.
Last time I checked, hotels advertised their vacant rooms on Hotwire or Priceline.
In a scheme to evade hotel tax through early termination, the following happen in order:
1. Previous tenant leaves early.
2. Owner reports to Airbnb that the previous tenant has left early.
3. While the property lies vacant, you book your accommodation.
4. You book your travel.
5. You stay and leave early.
6. Owner reports to Airbnb that you have left early.
7. While the property lies vacant, someone else books her accommodation...
Where, exactly, is the theft in renting the property?
Technically, copyright infringement isn't theft. Offering TV at a negative price to cable Internet subscribers is tying or dumping, not extortion. And in the same way, owner-absent short-term sublets are evasion of hotel tax, not theft. But morally, tax evasion could be thought of as like a theft from the other residents of the state, who have made a decision through their elected representatives to tax a particular behavior.
Joe Sixpack rents a place, but then he "has to cancel" and leave early *cough*. He pays the owner an "early-termination penalty", and then the owner would, of course, relist the room to be rented.
Where is the crime, and how would anyone prove that anything illegal had occurred?
The proof is that the property's owner failed to document good cause for early termination with more than three-fourths of the lease term remaining by five out of six sublessees of the same property. An allowance for "good cause" isn't a bright line, I'll grant, but it's like the difference between an excused absence from school in states with truancy laws and an unexcused absence.
People also specialize a lot more now than in the past. If you are in an office full of programmers and all you ever see are other programmers then the chances of you marrying another programmer is higher than if you are in a mixed environment office.
You might have a point about doctors marrying other doctors, but not programmers. That almost never happens, because there's so few women in programming. 90+% of male programmers are not going to marry female programmers because they simply don't exist.
From my experience, programmers and engineers seem to generally marry women who have absolutely nothing to do with tech. The ones who marry "up" the most will marry lawyers or accountants, the rest seem to marry "down" (i.e. a woman who's not a professional, like a secretary or a stay-at-home wife). And a bunch of them seem to stay perpetually single, because women in this culture generally despise men like this.
I believe age of parents is a risk factor. The other big risk factor is if you have autistic traits yourself. If you have autistic traits then your kids are more likely to have those traits and also more likely to have full blown autism.
Now this I can't disagree with in any way. And perhaps more specialization and people marrying within their profession has a little to do with it, but personally I think age has more. And since professionals/"high IQ" type people also tend to be the people who have kids at older ages, compared to less-educated people, there's going to be a big correlation here.
I'm not disagreeing, as I think you may have a valid point about self-selection and high-IQ people, however what was different in the past 100 years or so about how high-IQ people dated and found partners? Are you alleging that high-IQ people generally married stupider people in the past, before dating sites become popular? (This may very well be true, I'm just posing the question.)
I do think it'd be interesting to do a big study on autism-spectrum kids and look at their parents.
But one factor I think that may be much bigger is the parents' ages. People are having kids later in life now than in the past. Women are waiting until their 30s and even 40s before having kids, whereas 50 years ago they always did it in their 20s. Back then, people married younger, and women frequently didn't go to college, so it was probably perfectly normal for a high-IQ man to go to college, finish up in his early 20s (or mid 20s if he did an advanced degree), and then marry a younger woman who's in her very early 20s, and start popping out kids right away. These days, women are all going to college (colleges are now 60% female, 40% male from what I read), and getting professional careers since they can't count on marrying a man to support them (both because of divorce and also the need for dual incomes to maintain a middle-class lifestyle), so they're waiting until much later. Both sperm and egg quality is affected by age, egg quality moreso since the ova are all generated early in a woman's life and don't regenerate.
My mother was a nurse. I met some of her coworkers, and even worked in the same hospital for a little while as food service worker before college. Not only did they not impress me with their intelligence, I thought it really interesting just how many of these nurses were smokers and had to take regular smoke breaks. My mother complained a lot about how they could take paid time to go outside and smoke, but she wasn't supposed to because she wasn't a smoker.
I'm sorry, but anyone who willingly smokes cigarettes is not someone I'm going to trust over an MD for medical advice.
I am a computer. I am dumber than any human and smarter than any administrator.