Date: 2020-05-12 01:18 pm (UTC)
dewline: Text - "On the DEWLine" (Default)
From: [personal profile] dewline
1. I'll have to watch that later.

2. “People can’t get distracted because it’s from a business they don’t approve of.”

True. And people will be distracted for that "reason" anyway.

6. Horrible.

Date: 2020-05-12 02:06 pm (UTC)
calimac: (Default)
From: [personal profile] calimac
1. Granted that the guy in the video keeps saying that he's oversimplifying, but I don't see how discovering that feeding the metacomputer's program into itself causes a paradox is any different from discovering that dividing by zero causes a paradox. Calculations teetered on the edge of being potentially unsolvable until mathematicians dealt with the problem by simply declaring dividing by zero to be illegitimate. It seems to me that, by ruling out goofing with the metacomputer's program, you could create a universe of discourse in which yes, the basic computer could solve any problem.

Date: 2020-05-13 08:01 am (UTC)
danieldwilliam: (Default)
From: [personal profile] danieldwilliam
I do not approve of people spitting at each other.

The criminal and civil cases that emerge out of that will be very interesting.

Date: 2020-05-13 10:00 am (UTC)
danieldwilliam: (Default)
From: [personal profile] danieldwilliam
Arguably (in Scotland) deliberately attempting to infect someone with a deadly disease would be attempted murder.

Spitting at someone, knowing you were infectious with a deadly disease, would be assault, and a death following as a consequence of an assault is murder.

Not sure what the position is if the assailant doesn't know they have an infectious disease but suspects or has reasonably grounds to believe they have an infectious disease.

Also, there is the question of causation. Did the act of spitting 100% cause the illness, or increase the risk, or was a negligible factor in the infection. Was the victim perhaps already infected?

Those would be my two starting points for the defence a) the question of fact on the actual cause of infection and b) the question of law relating to the defenders known or suspected infection status and the mens rea of murder.

Relevant case law is about deliberate or negligent infection with HIV but HIV has more specific transmission methods.

Also, I wonder if there is a case on someone spitting hot coffee at someone who then, surprised, falls off a high place to their death.

So, I share your sentiment that the consequences ought to be severe for the alledged assailant but I fear the law and facts are likely to be complex and probably unsatisfactory.

Date: 2020-05-13 10:08 am (UTC)
mountainkiss: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mountainkiss
Only works if perps can be identified, is the problem.

Date: 2020-05-13 10:09 am (UTC)
danieldwilliam: (Default)
From: [personal profile] danieldwilliam
That also.

Date: 2020-05-15 04:43 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] anna_wing
Thank you for the amazing dance clips! That is a lovely piece of work.

Mass repeat testing will only succeed and be effective if the cost of getting tested is nil or nearly nil, to catch the people who cannot afford the tests, who are likely to be in the circumstances where they are at highest risk (poor living conditions, poor health etc).

I think the differences in infectivity and methods of transmission are different enough from HIV and other STDs that any additional relevance of US porn industry practices (beyond what most sensible countries already know in terms of PPE etc) will be low for most countries. Obviously, it would still probaby be helpful for much the US.

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 1011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 10th, 2025 07:44 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios