If we say that the law is the law unless we personally agree with the person breaking it- we have no law. We have no clear expectation of what actions will be punished and what actions will be forgiven by public opinion. We have mob justice and rule of whatever the moments passions are. So yes- there are fundamental flaws in our system that need fixed so there is a level of accountability and enough transparency to prevent people from easily hiding their misdeeds under a label of “classified,” but replacing one rogue who holds themselves above the law with another is just the same shit in a different wrapper.

The fact you happen to like what he did doesn’t excuse the same crime. If one person murders your mother and another murders that person- is the second murderer a hero or still a murderer? Using power and deceit and abuse of privilege outside the law is the crime he’s trying to hold others accountable for. So if he gets a pass under the fact that he was doing what he thought was right- how do we justify punishing others for doing what they think is right? Are abortion clinic bombers and ISIS bombers and those fighting gay or interracial marriage not just doing what they personally think is right too?

Boot lickers? Others like funkmasterrex have done well covering the idea of the power of information so I’ll leave that alone. How about this though- The government at its core is supposed to be for the people. Those upset by these secrets are upset by the corruption of that idea- that individuals abused power to their own ends and for their own means outside the law and principals of the law, they put themselves above the people and said “this is for the good of everyone that we hide this...” So... how is he different? One man- at least those others were at least appointed through the public trust even if they abused it. This is a single man deciding that he knows what is best. That he will decide what the people should know. One man with his own agendas and goals.

Yes- I’m glad he got over a fear but the logic is faulty. It would be more apt to say he realized a fear of the unknown was silly- the lack of ability to see or what might be in the unknown around us is often just that. Now if we can predict and explain an absence of photons that isn’t in itself cause for concern. But excluding any other factors, if we experience a sudden and unexplained lack of photons that could reasonably cause fear- in so much that no fear is strictly reasonable but is an understandable human emotion meant to aid our survival. So as far as “fear” goes- a fear of a lack of photons is a reasonable reaction. We must consider other external factors along with that lack of photons to determine what we are actually afraid of and wether or not it is reasonable under current circumstances to be so.

Always a pleasure.

The very good point raised here is that it’s somewhat hard in such cases to prove intent. You’d basically need some text message or something saying something like “these guys I disagree with will be protesting today. I’m going to drive down there and try and run one over “on accident” you should come...” that said- it really doesn’t have to be specific to protestors. It’s a common sense sort of law to the time of: if you are blocking a street and aren’t crossing it you could get hit by a car. If you mob and block in a car they might get scared and run you over trying to escape.” Countries that aren’t the US often already have laws that give right of way to cars on road ways, and pedestrians not crossing at controlled crossings are responsible for doing so safely.

But overall I think you’re right. Since we don’t really know too much about the mechanics of force field generation the biggest “danger” is the unknown. There’s likely some sort of radiation involved- wether that’s harmful.... can’t say.

So a human being generating a force field wouldn’t be likely to be able to create a force field that is very strong and likely not for long- or kill themselves on accident from over exertion. Of course- maybe they don’t generate the power- maybe they act more like a “relay” manipulating natural forces and the power comes from outside their body... that wouldn’t have that draw back. Being drunk or asleep or impaired could be dangerous of course.

That one is a safer bet- but.... there are some unknowns and some questions. We have to speculate certain things because force fields aren’t well developed or understood. Physics says we cant just “generate” a force field. So we have to have some sort of organ or structure which would allow us to do so. Likewise- our forcefields would require energy. Everything we know suggests it would be a tremendous amount of energy. The human body consumes a lot of energy, and we radiated a lot of energy as waste heat, and obviously the matter in our bodies contains a lot of energy. But in terms of “useable” energy- humans aren’t good batteries. We produce less voltage than an AA battery and max out at about 2000 watts for very short periods in the most elite of athletes. What’s more, the amount of time it takes to recover from these levels of exertion, and the toll of repeated expenditure are very high.

Yes, but it only took 2 sith (arguably 4...) to think up and execute that plan.

3- what about the people who aren’t executives or super stars? What about the contract employees and technical folks and the like who often make as much or less as any other job or industry but rely on future projects? So I mean- it’s complex but it’s really simple at the same time. Every time we pirate we are stealing. We can justify it any way we like, but we are saying that our desire to enjoy a work of art is greater than our desire to respect those who own that work. That devalues the work and de incentivizes those who aren’t simply creators but are business people financing and administrating an IP. So what and when and if we pirate is a personal decision, but we shouldn’t sugar coat or try and justify theft. It is what it is and we are what we are for doing it if we choose to.

It’s debatable. We could say “the actual artist only sees pennies from my $30!” But... if they only get pennies... they NEED the most people possible to buy it, otherwise the artist makes nothing. It takes millions of pennies to make any money at all for their work- and each person is only a few pennies. But then we could say.. “well anyone many of these celebrities are rich. Most people could retire and live their whole life on what they make from one project.” True. But that’s a three parter. Part 1- then why not pirate everything since they don’t need anymore money? 2- how much money is “enough,” like at what point do we say it’s ok to steal because someone doesn’t need it? Is it just if someone has more than we do?

It depends on wether you designed the room with that space or not. For instance if it is a wall for a room towards the inside of the house (not an outside wall) and you simply used less insulation in those spots and routed conduit around the shelves- you would lose no floor space- and if you planned to have say a 300sq/ft room and there were 300sq/ft of floor when done... well- no space lost. But mathematically we can crunch the numbers and determine that useable floor space might actually increase as well as utility through this design. One must remember that cubic space is lost- but most people don’t use the upper half or even 2/3rds of a wall for anything functional... unless they put a shelf there- in which case would you also argue one shouldn’t have kitchen cabinets or book shelves or entertainment centers for a tv?

Tl:dr- Thanos whole plan was moronic and doomed from the start. Patrick Star would have a better chance of solving population problems if you gave him the Gauntlet, and while we can all understand being frustrated with people- we CHOOSE to put up with it in return for the benefits. We don’t actually have to ever see another human face if we really didn’t want to.

What’s better- waiting half an hour to buy new shoes at the mall, or waiting half a day for a cobbler to resole your shoes or make them If it took 3 minutes for this comments page to load you’d be frustrated- but if there was no interest and we had to send comments written through the mail and it took days to read them- you’d be just as frustrated waiting. for you? It’s just tricks of perception.

... It can be inferred from Endgame that he did animals too- and bugs. The havoc that would cause on an ecosystem is likely immense. There would likely be mass extinctions and extreme environmental impact. So his plan is already beyond stupid. However as for understanding the motivation. Not really. See- there’s more than enough room on earth alone that people could live without clustering together. We cluster together because of how our society functions. If there are 100 billion or 10 people on earth it is likely that most will congregate together. This clustering causes lines and congestion- not the number of people. There isn’t a real benefit to less people either. There’s less traffic- but where will you go with most things shit down and the economy in ruins? What does it matter if you’re not in line behind 100 people for an hour to check out from the grocery store if there are fewer people making and transporting goods and it takes an extra week or more to get your stuff?

So there is the personal safety of protestors who should have learned as children not to stand in road ways, and the personal safety of people completely uninvolved or uninterested in protest exercising their rights to simply exist, who find themselves in a bad situation not of their making. Overall I think it is a good law. You have the right to protest or be heard, to assemble and enjoy. Others also have a right to use public roads etc. if you want to stand in the road, get the permits to block the road off like they do for festivals etc.

So the “best of both worlds” scenario is one which relies on “common sense.” A person standing in the road for any reason other than crossing it creates unnecessary danger to themselves and others. So we cant sanction murder of people standing in roads, but this law makes it the responsibility of those who choose to exercise the right of protest to do so in a manner that is safe. If you do not want to get hit by a car- do not stand in the road. It also helps absolve liability for drivers who find themselves “mobbed” by angry crowds and in fear for their safety. We cant give those people who are only trying to live their lives the choice of sitting and hoping the mob doesn’t hurt them, or spending life in jail if they try to break free.

Yes. It’s an important distinction. In America people have a right to “peaceful assembly” but people also have a right to peaceful enjoyment. In other words- if 10 people are trying to use the library and 10 people are trying to protest at the library- the law cannot favor the rights of either group. People protesting must be allowed to do so- and people using the library must be allowed to do so, and neither can use that right to take the others so a balance must be struck where each can do their thing. But when people stand in the way of traffic that is not a peaceful assembly- it is disruptive to the rights of those trying to live their lives. It is already illegal to congregate in roadways in most cases- but mass citation or arrest for such acts not only could escalate civil unrest, but could both be seen as or used as a tool to silence protest.

It’s far more straight forward than that. Wether they find minerals or drugs, if you do not have both the legal ownership of the items AND the legal right to posses the items, they will take them. You don’t get to keep illegal drugs they find after you are released do you? They remove ownership rights. So with minerals, you legally are allowed to posses them but if you do t have a legal claim to them they are not yours to keep. With drugs you may have the legal claim to ownership but it is illegal to posses them and so they will be taken. If you have a legal deed of mining rights you keep the minerals and there’s no issue. If you have a legal exemption such as a research exemption or where allowed a medical one- you also keep the drugs without issue. In the former cases you have one but not both requirements to entitlement, in the later you have both.

lol. Long ago more places were like this. The Central Valley has changed a lot in the last 40 or so years. But long ago up near Sacramento area if they caught you drunk the sheriff would sit you down in the diner and buy you a cup of coffee. They’d go off to do their work but tell you before they left that they’d drive by in a few hours and wanted to see you in the window. Once you’d sobered up they’d let you drive home. They’d also get bored- so when they were on the outskirts of town and they lit up some hotrodder they WANTED them to run. They’d chase you- if they caught you they pulled you over, gave you a ticket for whatever they were going to ticket you for originally, and that was it. No other penalty. If they lost you- the next time they saw you in town they’d give you the ticket instead. In town it was understood there was no running, but out in the boonies it was just a good time.