| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Sent.
Poland9297 Posts
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 ? 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. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
 | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
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. International waters has no local law since its shared by all. Stateless would mean no one has to take responsibility for them. This leaves it to large international organizations to take action using abstract terms like "Human Rights" or other such relative intangibles. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
Are you legally allowed to do this? It seems like the answer should be no | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
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 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. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
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? Yeah Leo's body in that pic is pretty slobby. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
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. I get the pricing of things it just seems weird to me that you can charge for something subjective like your personal feelings about someone. It seems weird that you can go to the counter (It was a burger place fyi) and randomly be told I don't like you, that will be an additional 10 dollars. although I suppose if it was used in a racist or discriminatory manner then it would be illegal. If that's how the law works though i guess that's that | ||
|
swag_bro
Japan782 Posts
| ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
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. Plus I assume that a large army would be spotted quite a while away giving China time to rally their own army where they'd already have the high ground. I think a lot of it had to do with the sheer size of the wall also. you'd need a pretty high ladder to actually even get to the top. I think a lot of the threat too was nomadic tribes which probably didn't think it was worth the time or effort to somehow get across the great wall and merely went with the past of least resistance also the area containing the great wall did actually change hands a few times. http://www.history.com/topics/great-wall-of-china I fixed a few things from my initial post since I didn't like what I had originally written | ||
|
helpman176
128 Posts
I don't quite get how they arrive at this number. Isn't this completely arbitrary? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
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? Well extinctions are reasonably common so saying there's a high chance of one is a pretty safe bet, the time-frame though does seem arbitrary. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
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? Short answer: No. It was quite a historical and surprisingly well documented shock when they found out. This is the main reason why the great wall of china is also known as "The great flaw of China" or "The great facepalm of China" | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
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? Well, the accuracy they imply when they give 3 signficant digits of 9120 is of course exaggerated, but I'm pretty convinced we hit 95% somewhere between 8k and 10k. + Show Spoiler [details] + Yes, it's arbitrary. They make some (arbitrary) assumptions and then calculate from that, but the assumptions are pretty wild. However, it is not a number that we will be able to measure in our life time, so no one is about to prove them wrong. Also, no one cares, for the same reason.  | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
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? 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. | ||
|
helpman176
128 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
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. Oh, it's THAT approach? I like it! Cute! Flawed, as you say, but cute! Not having read about it, I assumed it was a version based on us not having seen any aliens yet. I like this one more, much cleaner. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11824 Posts
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. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
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. Grog the Cromagnon wouldn't make any money from it though, people would just tell him to get back to hunting stuff | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  39417Calm  5388Sea  2432Mini 680Hyuk 582Shuttle 513firebathero 485EffOrt 400Light 369BeSt 336[ Show more ] Other Games singsing2353 B2W.Neo1124 hiko832 DeMusliM379 Lowko367 crisheroes272 ArmadaUGS83 Rex40 QueenE34 Trikslyr3 |
|
Big Brain Bouts
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Classic vs GgMaChine
Rogue vs Maru
WardiTV Invitational
IPSL
Ret vs Art_Of_Turtle
Radley vs TBD
BSL
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs TriGGeR
NightMare vs Solar
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
