William Gibson's early stuff is classic. Burning Chrome is a nice collection of his short stories. The Dune series is a masterwork. Stephen Baxter writes sci-fi that really examines how technology has, and will continue to change what it means to be human.
The legal system isn't intended for "getting away with shit", it's intended for making the prosecution prove, beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, that the defendant actually committed the act or acts they're being accused of. If someone ends up getting away with something, it's entirely the fault of the prosecution for not gathering enough evidence to have an airtight case.
This is true in a criminal trial, but not in a civil one. In a civil proceeding there is no defendant, and as Grond stated above (and others have stated elsewhere) you only have to show that the person being sued is most likely the person who caused the damage you are suing over.
It really, really bugs me. A lot. I know they are only using it to give the impression of a powerful and disastrous storm. It just seems that likening a coronal mass ejection to a "katrina-like" event is as realistic as likening a tornado to that little swirl in your bathtub drain.
the noise ordinance in the city in which i live dictates a specific range in feet from the source that a noise can be heard before it is considered to be in violation. i'm sure it varies widely by jurisdiction in both the metrics for determining what noises violate the local laws and what the penalties are for violations.
no you didn't mention children, you made a blanket statement about wielders of guns. children have in the past wielded them, and killed themselves and others. i'm sure that few if any of them had the intent to kill themselves or others. nowhere in my statement did i imply that inanimate objects have intent. i was merely stating that there was a glaring omission in your broad generalization. i certainly understand that design and intent are two very different things. although anyone who won't admit that the individual who DESIGNED the modern firearm INTENDED for it to kill things is clearly in a state of denial..
The object inherits the intent of the person who weilds the guy or has their thumb on the button. so you're saying that you'd let a child play with a gun, because they are obviously too young to have the intent to kill or injure something with it? i think you know you're logic is flawed. any fool can see that a gun is a device whose purpose is to kill.
Slashdot Mirror
William Gibson's early stuff is classic. Burning Chrome is a nice collection of his short stories. The Dune series is a masterwork. Stephen Baxter writes sci-fi that really examines how technology has, and will continue to change what it means to be human.
The legal system isn't intended for "getting away with shit", it's intended for making the prosecution prove, beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, that the defendant actually committed the act or acts they're being accused of. If someone ends up getting away with something, it's entirely the fault of the prosecution for not gathering enough evidence to have an airtight case.
This is true in a criminal trial, but not in a civil one. In a civil proceeding there is no defendant, and as Grond stated above (and others have stated elsewhere) you only have to show that the person being sued is most likely the person who caused the damage you are suing over.
It really, really bugs me. A lot. I know they are only using it to give the impression of a powerful and disastrous storm. It just seems that likening a coronal mass ejection to a "katrina-like" event is as realistic as likening a tornado to that little swirl in your bathtub drain.
the noise ordinance in the city in which i live dictates a specific range in feet from the source that a noise can be heard before it is considered to be in violation. i'm sure it varies widely by jurisdiction in both the metrics for determining what noises violate the local laws and what the penalties are for violations.
no you didn't mention children, you made a blanket statement about wielders of guns. children have in the past wielded them, and killed themselves and others. i'm sure that few if any of them had the intent to kill themselves or others. nowhere in my statement did i imply that inanimate objects have intent. i was merely stating that there was a glaring omission in your broad generalization. i certainly understand that design and intent are two very different things. although anyone who won't admit that the individual who DESIGNED the modern firearm INTENDED for it to kill things is clearly in a state of denial..