We are not bound to defend Ukraine. That's a complete myth. Here are the 6 clauses of the Budapest Memorandum: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/... Where does it say we are required to defend Ukraine?
Can they not ask some legal scholars for opinion rather than the Supreme Court? It seems weird to ask a court if something is legal or not before you do it. You ask a lawyer.
You must be new here. On slashdot, being against H-1B skilled immigrants is not racist, but being against unlimited low skill immigration is because they don't compete for the same jobs.
I would feel threatened by the new competition and would do everything I can to crush them, including lobbying politicians to impose barriers to entry disguised as consumer protection measures. Pretty much standard operating procedure.
Not to mention the economy where workers are paid on average $19/month and lack even basic necessities and cannot legally change jobs, move, own property, own a cellphone or a computer without government permit etc etc.
Yes they are better of than Haiti, the country that compares badly even with worst African countries, so you got that one right. But given the history and demographics of Cuba, there is potential for so much more which is being wasted due to a deluded and selfish leadership clinging on to a failed ideology for their personal benefit.
Is anybody still reading it? I thought they stopped their print edition few years ago because their circulation tanked and even online they are nowhere in the top 100 news sites. Going tabloid, like CNN, may be a desperate attempt to pull out of the death spiral.
The case will revolve around whether a "reasonable person" in his place would be in fear for their life. That's the only thing that matters. To me, the evidence I heard (bigger and stronger guy was very close to him and threw a bag of popcorn in his face) is at best inconclusive. It will also depend on what words were said etc. I didn't say that this wasn't a murder, I said that it is not at all clear cut as some people seem to think.
If there was a reasonable fear of being attacked, then the only way he could defend himself is with a gun. "Disproportionate force" is not an issue. How else would a 71 year old prevent a much stronger guy from beating him? Or perhaps "in your home country" a grandpa is legally required to take a beating rather than defend himself?
It's more complicated than that. In states without stand your ground law, yes, you are expected to leave the area if you can, before you get to the point of using lethal force. However, he could make a case that he didn't expect a minor argument over texting to escalate to that point. It is not reasonable to expect a person to avoid all interaction with other people just because they have a gun in their pocket.
Furthermore, since Florida does have stand your ground law, he is NOT required to leave a place where he is engaging in a lawful activity, such as watching a movie (that btw he paid for). I don't know if the fact that he left and came back complicates things but I doubt it.
The real jerk is someone who jumps to conclusions without having any clue as to what actually happened. Based on the same article, here is a reasonable alternative story:
The guy is repeatedly asked to turn off his cellphone and he refuses. The old guy leaves the theater to report him, but he either can't find a manager (I know in my local theater good luck finding an employee during a movie), or they refuse to do anything about it. He comes back and the texting guy turns (as reported) and accuses the old man of trying to get him ejected from the theater. We don't know exactly the way he put it but I can imagine. He gets up and turns around. Since they are one row apart, that';s probably less than a yard from the old guys face, and then he throws popcorn in his face. From the pictures, this guy seems pretty tall and strong and it's not unreasonable that one punch from him could kill a 71 year old.
Was shooting definitely warranted? Idk, probably not but I'll let the courts decide. A premeditated murder? Seems unlikely.
The shooter will spend the rest of his life in jail, how's that preferable to someone annoyingly texting in a movie?
We don't know if this was self defense or not. We know that the other guy (you know, the jerk who was texting and making noise and refused to stop after being asked politely multiple times) threw popcorn at the old man's face and for all I know might have taken a swing at him.
Not only that, but who responds to "We have accidentally destroyed your priceless collection of flutes. Write a letter." with "OMG, I have to write a letter!?"
How many societies can you name that were created by militant atheists?
I think 20th century Communist countries come pretty close. They may not have succeeded perfectly in their goal to erase any remains of the traditional order, usually based on religion, and to create a new socialist man, but they sure tried hard enough to kill tens of millions in the process.
I wonder how much the order in which you read books makes a difference in your world view. If you read Ayn Rand first, will Communist Manifesto seem completely hateful and ridiculous and vice versa. Maybe an interesting experiment.
You cannot understand a lot of the modern Western society's norms, customs and even laws, never mind art, music, architecture and so much more without being familiar with the stories of the Bible. It is a matter of basic education about the society you live in which, thank God, was not created by militant atheists like some others I could mention.
Most wars in history were not religious. Early 20th sentury with WWI and WWII which together probably killed more people than all previous wars put together, not to mention Red Terror in China and Russia, Stalin's purges and pogroms, Russian civil war etc had nothing to do with religion (though they did have a LOT to do with Mein Kampf and Das Kapital). The point is, people will fight and kill each other regardless, mostly over power and resources. They sometimes use a particular book, ideology or religion as an excuse and rallying point for their side, sometimes not. It doesn't make any sense to say Bible caused more deaths than another book.
I also think that the fact that the Bible served as a foundation for the most successful civilization in the history of mankind much more than offsets the cases when it was used for evil.
Sorry to spoil your crazy rant but actually these books are banned not because they are too PC (can you even imagine that ever happening? really?) but because they contain depictions of racism, sex, violence etc. It actually is the case of PC going too far yet again.
What part of commercial drones do you not understand? It is not about testing drones as much as developing infrastructure and procedures for widespread civilian drone use.
If French had any talent for making movies they would pay for themselves and wouldn't need to be subsidized. Name one French movie that isn't boring and pretentious crap.
That part has been upheld by the SCOTUS repeatedly.
Doesn't matter.
Exactly.
The focus on the SCOTUS to decide everything is dangerous and it seems to be designed to let the guilty off the hook. The NSA operates within government oversight and it is our elected officials who decide what it does. So blame your Congressmen, your President and yourself for electing them, not the Justices or the Constitution.
The Constitution is a small document and it cannot decide every issue perfectly. For example the government could pass a law that parents do not have right to raise their children and that instead they will be raised by government approved personnel. The Constitution simply does not say anything about that so that would not be found unconstitutional either.
Not unconstitutional (very arguable in this case) != OK.
This childish nonsense is tiring. First of all, neither is really true and many of them wrote against slavery but they operated within the bounds of what was possible at the time. Pick any venerated historical figure from another time and you will find a bunch of things that are wrong from the present day perspective.
Secondly, they are not worshiped as Gods personally but admired for their political wisdom which was ahead of their time. Constitution they wrote is not perfect but it's pretty damn good.
In any case, most of the the value of the Constitution is not in its perfection as a document or the perfection of its authors but in the fact that it stands above the elected officials (rule of law, not rule of men) and that it is very difficult to change to suit whoever happens to be in power at the time. Having a constitution that can be changed fairly easily by a simple majority (like in many countries) is like having no constitution at all since majority can always trample on minority's rights.
Slashdot Mirror
We are not bound to defend Ukraine. That's a complete myth. Here are the 6 clauses of the Budapest Memorandum: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/... Where does it say we are required to defend Ukraine?
Can they not ask some legal scholars for opinion rather than the Supreme Court? It seems weird to ask a court if something is legal or not before you do it. You ask a lawyer.
You must be new here. On slashdot, being against H-1B skilled immigrants is not racist, but being against unlimited low skill immigration is because they don't compete for the same jobs.
I would feel threatened by the new competition and would do everything I can to crush them, including lobbying politicians to impose barriers to entry disguised as consumer protection measures. Pretty much standard operating procedure.
It's banned by the city even if your lease allows it. It's so the city can collect its special 14% hotel tax.
Cuba is a horrible shithole in every way imaginable. I won't waste my time trying to convince somebody like you but look it up yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Not to mention the economy where workers are paid on average $19/month and lack even basic necessities and cannot legally change jobs, move, own property, own a cellphone or a computer without government permit etc etc.
Yes they are better of than Haiti, the country that compares badly even with worst African countries, so you got that one right. But given the history and demographics of Cuba, there is potential for so much more which is being wasted due to a deluded and selfish leadership clinging on to a failed ideology for their personal benefit.
Businesses like Starbucks and Banana Republic are far more beneficial to the society than the Hubble Telescope.
What's wrong with arms dealing?
I won't be reading NewsWeek anymore.
Is anybody still reading it? I thought they stopped their print edition few years ago because their circulation tanked and even online they are nowhere in the top 100 news sites. Going tabloid, like CNN, may be a desperate attempt to pull out of the death spiral.
The case will revolve around whether a "reasonable person" in his place would be in fear for their life. That's the only thing that matters. To me, the evidence I heard (bigger and stronger guy was very close to him and threw a bag of popcorn in his face) is at best inconclusive. It will also depend on what words were said etc. I didn't say that this wasn't a murder, I said that it is not at all clear cut as some people seem to think.
If there was a reasonable fear of being attacked, then the only way he could defend himself is with a gun. "Disproportionate force" is not an issue. How else would a 71 year old prevent a much stronger guy from beating him? Or perhaps "in your home country" a grandpa is legally required to take a beating rather than defend himself?
It's more complicated than that. In states without stand your ground law, yes, you are expected to leave the area if you can, before you get to the point of using lethal force. However, he could make a case that he didn't expect a minor argument over texting to escalate to that point. It is not reasonable to expect a person to avoid all interaction with other people just because they have a gun in their pocket.
Furthermore, since Florida does have stand your ground law, he is NOT required to leave a place where he is engaging in a lawful activity, such as watching a movie (that btw he paid for). I don't know if the fact that he left and came back complicates things but I doubt it.
The real jerk is someone who jumps to conclusions without having any clue as to what actually happened. Based on the same article, here is a reasonable alternative story:
The guy is repeatedly asked to turn off his cellphone and he refuses. The old guy leaves the theater to report him, but he either can't find a manager (I know in my local theater good luck finding an employee during a movie), or they refuse to do anything about it. He comes back and the texting guy turns (as reported) and accuses the old man of trying to get him ejected from the theater. We don't know exactly the way he put it but I can imagine. He gets up and turns around. Since they are one row apart, that';s probably less than a yard from the old guys face, and then he throws popcorn in his face. From the pictures, this guy seems pretty tall and strong and it's not unreasonable that one punch from him could kill a 71 year old.
Was shooting definitely warranted? Idk, probably not but I'll let the courts decide. A premeditated murder? Seems unlikely.
I read that he left the theater to report the guy who was texting, not necessarily to get his gun.
The shooter will spend the rest of his life in jail, how's that preferable to someone annoyingly texting in a movie?
We don't know if this was self defense or not. We know that the other guy (you know, the jerk who was texting and making noise and refused to stop after being asked politely multiple times) threw popcorn at the old man's face and for all I know might have taken a swing at him.
Not only that, but who responds to "We have accidentally destroyed your priceless collection of flutes. Write a letter." with "OMG, I have to write a letter!?"
How many societies can you name that were created by militant atheists?
I think 20th century Communist countries come pretty close. They may not have succeeded perfectly in their goal to erase any remains of the traditional order, usually based on religion, and to create a new socialist man, but they sure tried hard enough to kill tens of millions in the process.
I wonder how much the order in which you read books makes a difference in your world view. If you read Ayn Rand first, will Communist Manifesto seem completely hateful and ridiculous and vice versa. Maybe an interesting experiment.
You cannot understand a lot of the modern Western society's norms, customs and even laws, never mind art, music, architecture and so much more without being familiar with the stories of the Bible. It is a matter of basic education about the society you live in which, thank God, was not created by militant atheists like some others I could mention.
Most wars in history were not religious. Early 20th sentury with WWI and WWII which together probably killed more people than all previous wars put together, not to mention Red Terror in China and Russia, Stalin's purges and pogroms, Russian civil war etc had nothing to do with religion (though they did have a LOT to do with Mein Kampf and Das Kapital). The point is, people will fight and kill each other regardless, mostly over power and resources. They sometimes use a particular book, ideology or religion as an excuse and rallying point for their side, sometimes not. It doesn't make any sense to say Bible caused more deaths than another book.
I also think that the fact that the Bible served as a foundation for the most successful civilization in the history of mankind much more than offsets the cases when it was used for evil.
Sorry to spoil your crazy rant but actually these books are banned not because they are too PC (can you even imagine that ever happening? really?) but because they contain depictions of racism, sex, violence etc. It actually is the case of PC going too far yet again.
What part of commercial drones do you not understand? It is not about testing drones as much as developing infrastructure and procedures for widespread civilian drone use.
In more general terms, what they are saying is that successful businesses should be taxed to pay for their unsuccessful competition to catch up.
If French had any talent for making movies they would pay for themselves and wouldn't need to be subsidized. Name one French movie that isn't boring and pretentious crap.
Exactly.
The focus on the SCOTUS to decide everything is dangerous and it seems to be designed to let the guilty off the hook. The NSA operates within government oversight and it is our elected officials who decide what it does. So blame your Congressmen, your President and yourself for electing them, not the Justices or the Constitution.
The Constitution is a small document and it cannot decide every issue perfectly. For example the government could pass a law that parents do not have right to raise their children and that instead they will be raised by government approved personnel. The Constitution simply does not say anything about that so that would not be found unconstitutional either.
Not unconstitutional (very arguable in this case) != OK.
This childish nonsense is tiring. First of all, neither is really true and many of them wrote against slavery but they operated within the bounds of what was possible at the time. Pick any venerated historical figure from another time and you will find a bunch of things that are wrong from the present day perspective.
Secondly, they are not worshiped as Gods personally but admired for their political wisdom which was ahead of their time. Constitution they wrote is not perfect but it's pretty damn good.
In any case, most of the the value of the Constitution is not in its perfection as a document or the perfection of its authors but in the fact that it stands above the elected officials (rule of law, not rule of men) and that it is very difficult to change to suit whoever happens to be in power at the time. Having a constitution that can be changed fairly easily by a simple majority (like in many countries) is like having no constitution at all since majority can always trample on minority's rights.