You mean they might be committing acts of violence in the pursuit of political aims? You mean 'terrorism'? Should we really validate terrorism as a means of political protest?
I mean, there is an argument to be made there. If people are lashing out violently, they've probably run out of non-violent options and that's something that should be addressed. But I think it sets a horrible precedent to allow violence to shape political discussion.
Violence always shapes political discussion. When someone commits a terrorist act, there must always be a decision made on how to respond to it.
Understanding what drives a terrorist does not necessarily negate any punishment for the act of terror. It does give you the opportunity to decide whether the grievance that led them to act is one that you agree is legitimate, or if not, perhaps it is one that you want to address anyway in the interest of lowering the risk of other terrorist acts. All of this can be done without excusing in any way the act itself.
Heroin (and the fact that it's a scarce commodity due to legislation first world countries) has the self-harm potential (needles can be used by addicts so many times they actually snap/collapsed veins/'cotton fever') along with social negatives (shared needles=>increased rates of transmittance of hep C and other maladies, petty crime, prostitution (which is a-okay by me if regulated, but addicts who resort to sex working as a means to sustain their habit often are subjected to violent situations) organized crime/gang warfare due to the market effects of prohibition effectively making powdered heroin high purity being incredibly valuable in a fairly transportable form). Nasal consumption can lead to deviated septums, decreased nasal mucosa production, etc (not limited to heroin, habitual insufflation of cocaine exhibits the same effects). Smoking heroin off foil surely can't be good for ones lungs, though I'm not sure specifically what pulmonary effects it would yield.
As long as electricity and the components/knowledge is commonly available, those sociological byproducts are more or less eliminated (though the self-injurious effects have analogous deleterious effects one could argue). Unlike heroin, where the side-effects are well-known (about two hundred years of opium usage in the west, ranging from laudanum in the 19th century among primarily the affluent women of society to Purdue's OxyContin(tm)). We know how mu-opioids are structured molecularly, the pharmacological behavior occurs as they bind to (primarily) mu-opioid receptors in the brain, etc). tDCS main risk factor is (as stated in the article) the fact that it's a fairly new science. Even if properly administered by trained neuroscientists/neurologists/technicians within the field, we're not aware of the long-term 10 year side-effects. The risks increase dramatically if an average Joe is half-informed and tries to administer (or modify) tDCS themselves.
If heroin was legal, safe, and free, I still wouldn't use it.
The state I would be in as a heroin addict has a large negative value in my current utility function. This negative value is so large that it swamps the positive value of being happy all the time. I suspect this just means I'm not entirely hedonistic.
I suffered a pretty horrible Smith's fracture on my dorsal radius two years ago, such that the resident at the ER called his attending, who called the ortho specialist and immediately got 30mg oxycodone's 4x daily just as a stop-gap until they could block in a surgeon skilled enough to work on the Smith's fracture. Even through the egregious pain, I could see a: how those without opiate dependencies can find it euphoric and b: how easily an average person could form a habit without noticing it by escalating consumption.
I've used oxycodone for pain, and have occasionally played with higher dosages. I don't find the effects euphoric. More like numbness, but in a vaguely pleasant way. Or at least, not euphoric in the sense that Psilocybe are. But maybe that's just me. I've never had problems with opiate dependence.
Absolutely not my point. In fact, properly administered IV opiates have less long term damages of administered in than alcohol. (Pill-form opiates of the non-paracemetol fashion have no chance of liver cirrhosis, and the withdrawal has no potential to kill you, unlike sucking down two quarts of plastic vodka a day for 2 weeks then stopping cold.)
There were political benefits to scaremongering tons of drugs into illegality, economic benefits of keeping them illegal (should, say, 5mg generic Perocets enter into CVS tomorrow as over-the-counter and/or on-the-shelf drugs, petty theft might go up [much like I'm sure Robotussin is stolen frequently by high-schoolers who can't find someone to buy them booze]) would put tons of people out of work. There goes a significant part of the DEA (from those out in the field to those who push papers) along with the politicians who made their name during the Reagan-just-say-no-years, the extra police who were hired in more-or-less crimeless-suburbia to deal with some 16 year olds half-gram of weed, the attorneys who prosecute them, the defense contractors who make an excess of tanks in order to give those suburban law enforcers tanks[1].
My overall point was that opioids are a magnitude safer than DIY brain-hacking, if only due to the well-explored terrain of the analgesic properties of the narcotic (which, again, was the point of the article). "Even us neuroscientists/neurologists with extensive graduate school/residencies/fellowships and years of experience still don't know what the long-term effects are when we properly administer controlled dosages of current via well-placed electrodes on your skull. Please don't try to 'hack' your brain."
Sidebar, I'm not a medical doctor but every every grandfather, uncle (except one who went into mathematics as I did), and father all have been practicing MD's (including two neurologists), MD/PhDs, or PhDs in specifically drug design for evil-bigpharma). Drug design is basically 'throw a lot of junk at the wall and see what doesn't kill mice, oh god please make it to at least phase 1". Specifically, we're going to effectively look at our understanding of the brain and compare it to the crudity of surgery during the Civil War. The brain is an amazing thing - don't attach electrodes to it and try to modify its behavior until 'brain hacking' has been well-explored terrain.
There are only two conditions for entrapment - government inducement of the crime, and the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. [1] And I think this qualifies on both counts. The students were looking to get into the US, but the government pushed this visa mill on them indirectly, via the brokers (who wouldn't have had a dual-accredited fake university to pitch without the government's aid). Had these brokers not reached out to these students, it's unlikely that they would have sought out the same illegal method to enter the country. (This is assuming the brokers reached out the students, and not the other way round).
> There are only two conditions for entrapment - government inducement of the crime, and the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. And I think this qualifies on both counts.
Since the students are not charged with a crime, I'm not sure how either prong of the entrapment test could be met. There's literally no crime at issue in the students cases, which are non-criminal immigration cases.
> the government pushed this visa mill on them indirectly, via the brokers
The brokers are the only ones charged with crimes, though.
> Had these brokers not reached out to these students, it's unlikely that they would have sought out the same illegal method to enter the country.
Which, insofar as its true, may be a good argument against a lifetime ban (which is a possible penalty in the students' cases, so not completely irrelevant), but not so much against revoking the visas.
The brokers reaching out to the students doesn't mean entrapment, even if we took the case where the brokers actually were government agents. To be entrapment, someone working on the government's behalf would have to do something that would even convince a lawful-minded person to commit the crime.
> To be entrapment, someone working on the government's behalf would have to do something that would even convince a lawful-minded person to commit the crime.
As a lawful-minded individual, if multiple government websites tell me the institution is accredited, and the head of the institution tells me that work-for-credit is sufficient for student status, I am reasonably convinced that it is legal for me to enroll and apply for a visa.
Just how deep into the letter of the law do I have to dig to discover this isn't legal?
I think the difference here is not that it was entrapment, but that it wasn't a crime at all. Unless the law says this crime is strict liability, then the prosecutor would need to show that these individuals intended to commit the crime they were committing.
For example, say you have a bucket in your yard, I go and stick a sign up saying 'Free bucket to good home.' and someone else comes by and grabs the bucket. Focusing only on the third person's actions for a moment, even though they took a bucket that they had no right to take, and they would likely have to give back, they never committed a crime because they never intended to steal the bucket. They only intended to take a bucket being given away freely. (This is different from 'ignorance of the law isn't an excuse'; that would apply if they did intend to steal a bucket but thought stealing wasn't illegal.)
(Now there is still an issue with the government doing something similar with strict liability laws and I'm not sure how that one works out.)
That is a very different line of reasoning from that to which I was responding. IANAL so I'm not comfortable speculating too far but "it's entrapment if the government asks you to do it" is something I know to be a common misconception.
If I were to speculate further, though, I'd say that if someone justifiably believed it was legit because of the government sites, that somebody hadn't committed a crime in the first place and thus couldn't be entrapped.
> The brokers reaching out to the students doesn't mean entrapment
Especially since the brokers are the ones being charged with the crime.
The students aren't be charged with a crime (they are, however, being subject to non-criminal immigration proceedings, but "entrapment" is a criminal defense.)
Strictly speaking birds don't even have a cerebral cortex. That is, cortex evolved in mammals after the split with the last common ancestor of mammals and birds. So in that sense, birds would be at the very back of the ordering, along with reptiles, fish and the other vertebrates that lack a cortex. That said, birds do have a well developed pallium that seems to play a similar role as cortex does in mammals, even though it is structurally quite different. If you let pallium stand in for cortex, crows would probably do okay.
It seems likely that avian pallium performs similar computations as cortex, despite having a different implementation. The more interesting question, in my opinion, is not who has the most neurons of any particular type, but how those cells enact computations. Does the avian pallium have representations that are similar to mammalian cortex. In other words, does it solve problems in similar ways/using similar algorithms as cortex or did its early divergence allow it to find different solutions?
To me it seems our ability to preserve and share knowledge is far more important for our intellectual pursuits than the individual brain is. E.g. it took hundreds of thousands of years for someone to think up the number 0, and then it spread like wildfire (after the authorities stopped resisting).
What I find curious is that parrots can vocalize at least as well as humans, they show some pretty solid reasoning ability, their tongue is practically an opposable thumb, and yet they don't seem to have developed complex spoken language or technology.
I wonder what's missing from bird brains that would help them with language. Actually, I just had a flash of memory about some part of the brain involved with putting ideas into linear sequences, as we do with words. Maybe that plays a part.
Corvids and cetaceans would be good for future study, but I doubt we're in for much of a surprise.
This is a study in line with interspecies differences. Intraspecies differences still require some teasing out. E.g., how does a Gauss differ from Joe Q. Public?
I think there must be a fundamental difference in the way Americans view privacy vs how Europeans view privacy.
To me, 'privacy' means that my actions performed at home (or in other places where I can reasonably assume to be alone or in private company) should not be under the scrutiny of others.
I should have the right to act how I want in public as well, so long as my actions do not affect other people. But I don't see how I could reasonably expect to have privacy in that case.
Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.
The reason someone's search results are considered 'objectionable' is because they consider those results private. The private citizen, in the case, is the censor. The french government is just the enforcing body behind that censorship.
You are using a general definition "removing objectionable information" here but most people, when reading "censorship" will understand it refers to a different concept like "deplorable practice of suppressing communication between people by force". You cannot, in general, put personal information regarding an individual in place of that communication and call exercising right to control personal data censorship. The right to be forgotten does not mean anything objectionable can be removed and it does not apply to public figures, companies or corporations. It only applies to individuals and search queries containing their name. In special cases the objected search result is important to the public, the right to be forgotten does not apply. So no, it is not censorship.
I'm not getting why this is supposed to be impressive. It just looks like they lined up several tiny motors and used a small gear ratio. There's very little ant-like cooperation.
The researchers’ approach is counterintuitive. Rather than striking powerful blows like a football player making a tackle or a jackhammer, they have focused on synchronizing the smooth application of very tiny forces. The microrobots work in concert, if slowly.
The researchers observed that the ants get great cooperative force by each using three of their six legs simultaneously.
“By considering the dynamics of the team, not just the individual, we are able to build a team of our ‘microTug’ robots that, like ants, are superstrong individually, but then also work together as a team,” said David Christensen, a graduate student who is one of the authors of a research paper describing the feat. The paper will be presented this May at the International Conference on Robotics and Automation in Stockholm.
Well, when you dismiss something as "just [oversimplification intended to demean an accomplishment]" it does not sound very impressive, no. But rest assured it is.
I mean, Philae was just a small probe that barely sent back some signals and grainy photos from a comet. I don't see what's so impressive about that.
Does your negative impression spring from a belief that you could have done the same thing if only you had the skill, experience, idea, and ability to execute?
You don't, but only because you have experience seeing footballers playing well to compare against.
What's your point of reference for judging these robots? Unless you're well-versed in the field you probably aren't qualified to say whether or not this is good or bad work. Consequently it's not that unreasonable to accept the article at face value. It's not like you've got anything to lose.
You don't look stupid if you believe a believable story so cynically protecting yourself by saying it's unimpressive compared to, say, the latest Boston Dynamics video, isn't really very fair on the people who did the work.
