Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 275

On June 04 2015 23:35 oGoZenob wrote:
if a stateless person murders another stateless person someone while swimming in international waters, who has the authority to juge him ?

On June 05 2015 08:23 Sent. wrote:


Depends on local law (check general provisions of your national penal code) but I guess any state has the autorithy as long as the murderer is within it's territory.

On June 05 2015 08:34 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
a couple weeks ago I went to a place that had a message that said "If you have a bad attitude or I just don't like you there will be an extra $10 charge."

Are you legally allowed to do this? It seems like the answer should be no

On June 05 2015 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are you calling Leo's body in that pic in the article "slob" like or is there a different example your thinking of?

On June 05 2015 08:43 TMagpie wrote:


There are no laws on prices if it is clearly dictated.

If he didn't have that sign and charged $10 then it is theft. With the sign it is agreed upon--assuming there is a specific product or service he can prove you were asking for. This is usually the rub against signs like that.

For example: I can charge $10,000 for a used condom. And if someone pays for it, then its legally binding. But if I gave someone a used condom, and then demanded $10,000 for it--then it isn't legally binding.

On June 05 2015 13:43 Coppermantis wrote:
Ladders are always a consideration for walls, and have frequently been used in medieval siege warfare (including things like siege towers, etc.) However, while climbing a ladder, the enemy soldiers are extremely vulnerable to being shot with arrows, having things dumped on them like tar or boiling water, or having the ladder itself knocked over.

On June 05 2015 15:48 helpman176 wrote:
I have read about the Doomsday Argument which says that there is a 95% chance of extinction within 9,120 years.
I don't quite get how they arrive at this number. Isn't this completely arbitrary?

On June 05 2015 13:28 Epishade wrote:
Did the Chinese not consider that invaders might have ladders when building the great wall of China?

On June 05 2015 15:48 helpman176 wrote:
I have read about the Doomsday Argument which says that there is a 95% chance of extinction within 9,120 years.
I don't quite get how they arrive at this number. Isn't this completely arbitrary?

On June 05 2015 15:48 helpman176 wrote:
I have read about the Doomsday Argument which says that there is a 95% chance of extinction within 9,120 years.
I don't quite get how they arrive at this number. Isn't this completely arbitrary?

On June 05 2015 16:05 Oshuy wrote:


It's a statistical argument (flawed). Suppose humanity goes extinct at some point in the future. The total number of humans from first one to last one is finite.

We can estimate the number of humans born before us: about 60 billion at this point.

Then you set a probability goal. For the argument, they use 95%. You have about 95% chances that you were born in the last 95% of all humans that will ever live, so 95% that the total population is limited to 1200 billion before extinction.

Making the hypothesis that from now on the population stays stable at 10 billion, the 1200 billion are reached in 9120 years.

On June 05 2015 16:26 Simberto wrote:
It is also obviously a very silly argument due to selection bias.

Every person at every point in history in any possible future scenario could make that argument. Grog the Cromagnon could have made that argument in 30000 BC.