Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, 4 July 2023
Sunday, 4 July 2021
Thursday, 5 November 2020
Friday, 14 February 2020
Wednesday, 25 December 2019
VARIDESK ProDesk 48™ Electric Reclaimed Wood
 |
| VARIDESK ProDesk 48™ Electric Reclaimed Wood |
- Assembles in 5 minutes or less (not quite - it's a two person job)
- 3 programmable memory settings with LED display
- A steel crossbar for enhanced stability
- Cable management tray
- Table = 122cm x 76cm
- Height = 65-129cm
- Legs = 73.5cm
- Supports up to 90.7kg
 |
| VARIDESK Dual Monitor Arm |
Saturday, 8 April 2017
Wednesday, 8 June 2016
Tuesday, 15 December 2015
Monday, 3 March 2014
Tuesday, 1 January 2013
Saturday, 27 October 2012
Tuesday, 21 August 2012
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Monday, 23 February 2009
Have you ever wondered...
I was thinking about an economics syllabus for "average" school students, because I've done ones for top students and for uni students several times.
I haven't worked out the answers but I was thinking of just asking the following questions:
Further Info:
There's No Such Thing as a Free Market
Sad Guys on Trading Floors
"How Many Currencies?" by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 23 Feb 2010
Balassa-Samuelson Effect
"Copyright laws threaten our online freedom" by Christian Engstrom, FT.Com, 7 July 2009
I haven't worked out the answers but I was thinking of just asking the following questions:
- Why is this year's TV bigger, better and cheaper than last year's?
- Why is food cheaper in Asia?
- Why is Bill Gates the world's richest man?
- Who pays for pollution?
- How much is information worth?
Further Info:
There's No Such Thing as a Free Market
Sad Guys on Trading Floors
"How Many Currencies?" by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 23 Feb 2010
Balassa-Samuelson Effect
"Copyright laws threaten our online freedom" by Christian Engstrom, FT.Com, 7 July 2009
Thursday, 25 December 2008
Knowing the Path
Often the question I get asked is really just asking, "What do I say next to win the debate."To date my answer has been along the lines of, "There is no spoon", an answer calculated to infuriate Orlando, but really directed towards rejecting the premise of the question in the hope of providing a purpose at the same time as providing a tool.
What do we mean by "winning"? Is it the journey? Will we only know once we get there? (In which case, yes, it's the journey thing).
Further Info:
"Eight ways to get exactly what you want" by Dan Jones and Alison Motluk, NewScientist, Issue 2655, 7 May 2008
"Digital billboards get a little creepier" by Alana Semuels, LA Times, 27 October 2008
"More Reflections on Bobby Fischer" by Patrick J Lyons, The New York Times, 18 January 2008
"The Behavioral Revolution" by David Brooks, NYtimes.com, 27 October 2008
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
"He had a bunch of keys"
[1978] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 172 at 173:
Lord DENNING, M.R.:
It was a factory at Gillingham in Kent. A firm called Photo Production Ltd. made Christmas cards there, and such like. There was a lot of paper and cardboard about which would burn easily. The factory was shut up for the night, locked and secure. No one was supposed to go in except a man on night patrol. He came from a security firm called Securicor. He had a bunch of keys. His duty was to go through the factory and see that all was safe and secure. No burglars and no fire.
On the night of Oct. 18/19, 1973, the patrolman was George Musgrove. He was a young man only 23 years old, unmarried. He came of a respectable family and had satisfactory references. He had been with Securicor for some three months. Securicor cannot be blamed for employing him on the job.
At the dead of night--10 minutes before midnight--Musgrove went to the factory. He unlocked the front door and went through the factory, switching on the lights as he went. Then he lit a match and threw it onto a cardboard box. It burst into flames. He says that he only meant it to be a very small fire and intended to put it out within a minute or two. But it got beyond his control. He was terrified and dialled 999 for the fire brigade. He tried to stop it spreading. He lost his glasses and false teeth. His right hand and arm were burnt. He staggered out of the factory through the smoke and flames. By that time the firemen and police were there. They had answered the call with great promptitude. They were at the factory at three minutes past midnight. But they could not save it. There was already a wall of flame across the building. Flames were coming through the roof. The place was gutted. The damage to the building and stock was put at £400,000. The loss of business at £250,000. Musgrove was afterwards charged with arson. He pleaded guilty to malicious damage and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
The occupiers of the factory claim damages *174* from Securicor for this loss. The Judge has held that Securicor are exempted from liability by an exception clause in the contract. The factory occupiers appeal to this Court.
Further Info:
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827
More Lord Denning quotes at LegalHumour.com
"The Law Explored: Lord Denning" by Gary Slapper, TimesOnline, 29 August 2007
Lord DENNING, M.R.:
It was a factory at Gillingham in Kent. A firm called Photo Production Ltd. made Christmas cards there, and such like. There was a lot of paper and cardboard about which would burn easily. The factory was shut up for the night, locked and secure. No one was supposed to go in except a man on night patrol. He came from a security firm called Securicor. He had a bunch of keys. His duty was to go through the factory and see that all was safe and secure. No burglars and no fire.
On the night of Oct. 18/19, 1973, the patrolman was George Musgrove. He was a young man only 23 years old, unmarried. He came of a respectable family and had satisfactory references. He had been with Securicor for some three months. Securicor cannot be blamed for employing him on the job.
At the dead of night--10 minutes before midnight--Musgrove went to the factory. He unlocked the front door and went through the factory, switching on the lights as he went. Then he lit a match and threw it onto a cardboard box. It burst into flames. He says that he only meant it to be a very small fire and intended to put it out within a minute or two. But it got beyond his control. He was terrified and dialled 999 for the fire brigade. He tried to stop it spreading. He lost his glasses and false teeth. His right hand and arm were burnt. He staggered out of the factory through the smoke and flames. By that time the firemen and police were there. They had answered the call with great promptitude. They were at the factory at three minutes past midnight. But they could not save it. There was already a wall of flame across the building. Flames were coming through the roof. The place was gutted. The damage to the building and stock was put at £400,000. The loss of business at £250,000. Musgrove was afterwards charged with arson. He pleaded guilty to malicious damage and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
The occupiers of the factory claim damages *174* from Securicor for this loss. The Judge has held that Securicor are exempted from liability by an exception clause in the contract. The factory occupiers appeal to this Court.
Further Info:
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827
More Lord Denning quotes at LegalHumour.com
"The Law Explored: Lord Denning" by Gary Slapper, TimesOnline, 29 August 2007
Monday, 24 March 2008
Paris in the the Spring
I find this really funny. I don't know why...http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/05/opinion/oe-kenney5
Tuesday, 5 June 2007
Torture
On Sunday, James and I went to see an event entitled ‘On Torture’ as part of the Sydney Writers’ Festival. The panel was comprised of two speakers, American Michael Otterman, the author of the book ‘American Torture,’ and Raimond Gaita (acclaimed philosopher and author of the memoir “Romulus My Father” which has just been released on film.)
The first speaker was Michael Otterman – a journalist.
He argues that we should not legalise torture for three main reasons:
a. The ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario is a hypothetical – there has never been a historical situation (or so he believes) where this has been the case, so to legalise torture on that basis seems ludicrous.
b. Torture is actually the worst way to get information from suspects. The FBI (as opposed to the CIA) have used non-violent methods in investigating various different domestic terror suspects in cases like the 1993 WTC bombing and the 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing. He believes their intelligence to be of greater value when they use tactics like ‘we’ll get your sick son medical treatment’ etc. instead of physical torture.
c. Once torture is legalised, it quickly spreads. He cites the example of Israel in the 1980s where the Shin Bet were authorised to utilise a ‘moderate use’ of coercive methods, and it was found that over 85% of Palestinians were subjected to torture in detention.
All of this is perhaps unsurprising and nothing new. These are very similar “we should not legalise torture” arguments from debates we’ve been doing for years. However, Raimond Gaita - an ethics professor at Kings College – presented some really sophisticated arguments which I think are much more interesting than the usual run-of-the-mill ones.
In light of this, I thought I’d pose some questions with some of Gaita’s answers mingled with my own thoughts.
1. Would you torture one person to save a thousand?
People who condone the use of torture – even in extreme times – cannot choose to answer for the thousands they seek to represent, as the thousands of others are not an indivisible mass. That is, you cannot presume to answer on behalf of the other thousand people, for who are you to do so?
Gaita argues that each one of us should be prepared to die so that the practice of torture should not be inflicted upon anyone. “Do not assume to torture on my behalf – I may be prepared to die in the fight of not negotiating with terror.”
He also argues that people who accept torture must also accept all of the implications. For example, they must accept that there is a brute underclass created to perform such acts etc
I think this is a fascinating twist on the ticking time bomb hypothetical. For a long time, I think my answer would have been, yes, torture one (or even kill one, in more morbid hypothetical) so that a thousand could live. But I think he point isa really valid one. It also reminds me of the Ali G sketch, where, interviewing an animal rights activist, he asks, “Would you kill one chicken so that two others could live?” and “Are you ok with animal testing when the product is for animals?” Two philosophical nail biters if ever there were.
2. Is everything negotiable when one’s life is at stake?
Some people argue that torture is a ‘necessary evil’ because of the common good and/or the national interest.
Gaita’s response is that terrorists only threaten our lives: it is us who control how we will change our own morality/democracy/ethics in how we respond to terrorists.
Further, he cautions against the use of ‘necessary evil’ as a frame itself. How can anything, he asks, framed as ‘obligatory’ be seen as evil? If this is the case, we blur our boundaries of good and evil when we accept the necessary nature of anything
3. But aren’t things fundamentally different since 9/11? Aren’t we in a new era of warfare?
Some people argue that after the event of 9/11, everything has changed and therefore we now need to turn to torture.
Gaita argues that this would be true if the last century was particularly innocent, but that this same “blood-soaked” century, the time of Paschendaele, Gallipoli, Auschwitz, Rwanda etc, was also the century of the U.N. and hundreds of conventions governing how we should be humane to each other. So to think that 9/11 has changed the world, he believes, is succumbing to the tyranny of the present and a politicking tool to justify a whole lot of breaches of H.R.
I find Gaita’s argument really compelling, but wonder about the new type of warfare which 9/11 has prompted, that of the move from wars fought within or between nation states and the shift to non-state actors like terrorists on the world stage. Perhaps, where there is no longer a red phone to the Kremlin in the Oval Office, it is unsurprising that tactics must change. I don’t say this as an apology for torture – I am against the use of it entirely – but I wonder whether the event hasn’t prompted some changes to modern warfare, the effects of which we can’t understand yet. Or perhaps I too am succumbing to the politics of the “things are bad, so let us do what we want” White House.
4. What do you think of the role of doctors and psychologists in the practices of torture on American soldiers in SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) Schools?
Otterman talks of these schools where American soldiers are tortured under the watch of psychologists and doctors in order to become ‘stress inoculated’ in case they are captured by the enemy. Someone in the audience raised the question that could these people could be aligned with the Nazi doctors who also took the Hippcratic Oath. Isn’t the purpose of a doctor to protect the patient at all costs? (Hypocritic, perhaps?)
Interestingly also, the American Association of Psychologists is one of the major medical organizations who has not spoken out about this practise, because some of the senior psychologist on the board were in Iraq supervising torture methods…
5. Are there some things that should be essentially undiscussable?
Just as you can note the character of a person by what they will not discuss, you can note the character of a nation by what is ‘undiscussable’. Gaita doesn’t believe there is even a place to ‘speak’ about torture within the community, because there are some things that can’t morally be argued. For example, you would never see a debating topic like “That Genocide is an effective way of XYZ” but you are very likely to see the topic “that torture is a legitimate means of intelligence gathering.”
This is the question that most stumps me, as my inner liberal leftie wants to talk about everything and debate everything because I think that part of beating your enemy is to know them through knowing their ‘side’ if you like. I have debated that torture topic a few times, and been on both sides of it. I suppose I had no moral objection at the time because I think of debating as an intellectual exercise in framing, contextualisation and argument. But I also think that if something like torture is in the public discourse, it should be talked about a lot. But again, perhaps there is no argument to be had: perhaps a line deserves to be drawn against the most reprehensible things, like the detention of immigrants in Australia because there is no argument.
I’d be really interested to hear what the others think on this topic.
The first speaker was Michael Otterman – a journalist.
He argues that we should not legalise torture for three main reasons:
a. The ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario is a hypothetical – there has never been a historical situation (or so he believes) where this has been the case, so to legalise torture on that basis seems ludicrous.
b. Torture is actually the worst way to get information from suspects. The FBI (as opposed to the CIA) have used non-violent methods in investigating various different domestic terror suspects in cases like the 1993 WTC bombing and the 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing. He believes their intelligence to be of greater value when they use tactics like ‘we’ll get your sick son medical treatment’ etc. instead of physical torture.
c. Once torture is legalised, it quickly spreads. He cites the example of Israel in the 1980s where the Shin Bet were authorised to utilise a ‘moderate use’ of coercive methods, and it was found that over 85% of Palestinians were subjected to torture in detention.
All of this is perhaps unsurprising and nothing new. These are very similar “we should not legalise torture” arguments from debates we’ve been doing for years. However, Raimond Gaita - an ethics professor at Kings College – presented some really sophisticated arguments which I think are much more interesting than the usual run-of-the-mill ones.
In light of this, I thought I’d pose some questions with some of Gaita’s answers mingled with my own thoughts.
1. Would you torture one person to save a thousand?
People who condone the use of torture – even in extreme times – cannot choose to answer for the thousands they seek to represent, as the thousands of others are not an indivisible mass. That is, you cannot presume to answer on behalf of the other thousand people, for who are you to do so?
Gaita argues that each one of us should be prepared to die so that the practice of torture should not be inflicted upon anyone. “Do not assume to torture on my behalf – I may be prepared to die in the fight of not negotiating with terror.”
He also argues that people who accept torture must also accept all of the implications. For example, they must accept that there is a brute underclass created to perform such acts etc
I think this is a fascinating twist on the ticking time bomb hypothetical. For a long time, I think my answer would have been, yes, torture one (or even kill one, in more morbid hypothetical) so that a thousand could live. But I think he point isa really valid one. It also reminds me of the Ali G sketch, where, interviewing an animal rights activist, he asks, “Would you kill one chicken so that two others could live?” and “Are you ok with animal testing when the product is for animals?” Two philosophical nail biters if ever there were.
2. Is everything negotiable when one’s life is at stake?
Some people argue that torture is a ‘necessary evil’ because of the common good and/or the national interest.
Gaita’s response is that terrorists only threaten our lives: it is us who control how we will change our own morality/democracy/ethics in how we respond to terrorists.
Further, he cautions against the use of ‘necessary evil’ as a frame itself. How can anything, he asks, framed as ‘obligatory’ be seen as evil? If this is the case, we blur our boundaries of good and evil when we accept the necessary nature of anything
3. But aren’t things fundamentally different since 9/11? Aren’t we in a new era of warfare?
Some people argue that after the event of 9/11, everything has changed and therefore we now need to turn to torture.
Gaita argues that this would be true if the last century was particularly innocent, but that this same “blood-soaked” century, the time of Paschendaele, Gallipoli, Auschwitz, Rwanda etc, was also the century of the U.N. and hundreds of conventions governing how we should be humane to each other. So to think that 9/11 has changed the world, he believes, is succumbing to the tyranny of the present and a politicking tool to justify a whole lot of breaches of H.R.
I find Gaita’s argument really compelling, but wonder about the new type of warfare which 9/11 has prompted, that of the move from wars fought within or between nation states and the shift to non-state actors like terrorists on the world stage. Perhaps, where there is no longer a red phone to the Kremlin in the Oval Office, it is unsurprising that tactics must change. I don’t say this as an apology for torture – I am against the use of it entirely – but I wonder whether the event hasn’t prompted some changes to modern warfare, the effects of which we can’t understand yet. Or perhaps I too am succumbing to the politics of the “things are bad, so let us do what we want” White House.
4. What do you think of the role of doctors and psychologists in the practices of torture on American soldiers in SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) Schools?
Otterman talks of these schools where American soldiers are tortured under the watch of psychologists and doctors in order to become ‘stress inoculated’ in case they are captured by the enemy. Someone in the audience raised the question that could these people could be aligned with the Nazi doctors who also took the Hippcratic Oath. Isn’t the purpose of a doctor to protect the patient at all costs? (Hypocritic, perhaps?)
Interestingly also, the American Association of Psychologists is one of the major medical organizations who has not spoken out about this practise, because some of the senior psychologist on the board were in Iraq supervising torture methods…
5. Are there some things that should be essentially undiscussable?
Just as you can note the character of a person by what they will not discuss, you can note the character of a nation by what is ‘undiscussable’. Gaita doesn’t believe there is even a place to ‘speak’ about torture within the community, because there are some things that can’t morally be argued. For example, you would never see a debating topic like “That Genocide is an effective way of XYZ” but you are very likely to see the topic “that torture is a legitimate means of intelligence gathering.”
This is the question that most stumps me, as my inner liberal leftie wants to talk about everything and debate everything because I think that part of beating your enemy is to know them through knowing their ‘side’ if you like. I have debated that torture topic a few times, and been on both sides of it. I suppose I had no moral objection at the time because I think of debating as an intellectual exercise in framing, contextualisation and argument. But I also think that if something like torture is in the public discourse, it should be talked about a lot. But again, perhaps there is no argument to be had: perhaps a line deserves to be drawn against the most reprehensible things, like the detention of immigrants in Australia because there is no argument.
I’d be really interested to hear what the others think on this topic.
Thursday, 24 May 2007
A Charter of Human Rights for Australia?
Tonight, Kato and I are going to drop in on a panel discussion about the possibility of a Charter of Human Rights at the federal level. I wanted to set out some thoughts here before hand and see how/if they change...
Why?
To me the answer is because the majority are generally happy to trade the human dignity of the minority for promises of security - especially when things start blowing up. A CHR should encourage people/government to think in terms of proportionality - what are we giving up and what are we gaining?
What Rights?
The UK and NZ have stuck to civil and political rights. Economic, social and cultural rights are more problematic because they can place courts in the position of deciding how the executive should spend money. Seems like the South African Constitutional Court has been doing a great job of negotiating this tricky territory - with a much stronger Bill than Australia would ever pass, so I say bring on the ESC rights.
Sovereignty
Parliament should retain the last say. A CHR should not be constitutionally entrenched (like in the US and Canada). The ability of the courts to strike down legislation makes people crazy. Jurisprudence surrounding the 14th Amendment in the US is an example of how it can go bad.
Mechanics
The focus on the CHR should be on law making. It should demand that the Minister responsible or the AG sign off on the compatibility of proposed laws (or say why the law is necessary despite incompatibility). It should also to enforce the mechanics of analysis --> Human Rights Impact Statements?
Why Not?
Because judges will take over.
Overwhelming numbers of spurious law suits.
Because current laws are good enough.
Because it will be too token.
I'd appreciate any comments from the smart and government-savvy disco. That way I can steal them and make snooty comments over canapes.
Why?
To me the answer is because the majority are generally happy to trade the human dignity of the minority for promises of security - especially when things start blowing up. A CHR should encourage people/government to think in terms of proportionality - what are we giving up and what are we gaining?
What Rights?
The UK and NZ have stuck to civil and political rights. Economic, social and cultural rights are more problematic because they can place courts in the position of deciding how the executive should spend money. Seems like the South African Constitutional Court has been doing a great job of negotiating this tricky territory - with a much stronger Bill than Australia would ever pass, so I say bring on the ESC rights.
Sovereignty
Parliament should retain the last say. A CHR should not be constitutionally entrenched (like in the US and Canada). The ability of the courts to strike down legislation makes people crazy. Jurisprudence surrounding the 14th Amendment in the US is an example of how it can go bad.
Mechanics
The focus on the CHR should be on law making. It should demand that the Minister responsible or the AG sign off on the compatibility of proposed laws (or say why the law is necessary despite incompatibility). It should also to enforce the mechanics of analysis --> Human Rights Impact Statements?
Why Not?
Because judges will take over.
Overwhelming numbers of spurious law suits.
Because current laws are good enough.
Because it will be too token.
I'd appreciate any comments from the smart and government-savvy disco. That way I can steal them and make snooty comments over canapes.
Monday, 15 January 2007
Futurama 3x15
At some stage it would seem inevitable that humans will start wanting to have relations with robots.... and just for laughs (from The Daily Gut): "Lines a robot will use to break up with a human:
- It is not you. It is my AI 23000 central processing unit.
- There is someone else. Actually, It is a self-guided RL-1000 Series Robomower with Docking Station. Does it matter which year? Okay fine, the 2006.
- You are just using me for a series of mundane tasks.
- Sometimes I think it is you who is repeating pre-recorded sounds.
- I would like my Kraftwerk CDs back. Here is your sweater.
- Sometimes I think it is you who has been performing tasks repeatedly in exactly the same fashion.
- How was my day? Well, I painted, welded and assembled a car for you. Thanks for asking.
- I don't ask for much. Just a little feedback to control the precise process you wish me to perform.
- I have been asked to defuse roadside bombs in Iraq. Don't wait for me.
- You are becoming less aesthetically pleasing over time. I will show myself out.
- I predict that you did not know that I have entered an art contest and took first place. That is proof of how little you know about me."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)