The law, as far as it is accurately represented in recent media reports (IANAL), says that the OWNER of the oil bears primary responsibility for cleanup. That will be BP. The relationship between BP and their contractors is their own business. It will still lend up being a complicated mess of lawsuits though.
It's sad that such meaningless statements are considered insightful by some. There is far more regulation of the economy now than there was in Nixon's time, so in what way exactly has US "swung to the right" since then? What "abuses of power" do you speak of and what do they have to do with anything? Economically, if you take the extreme "right" to be completely unregulated market and extreme "left" to be communist style central planning, the US has actually swung to the left and sadly continues moving in that direction.
The point is that the law essentially doesn't give any major new powers to the police except to enable them check somebody's immigration status when they are dealing with that person anyway. There used to be a common and ridiculous situation where a van full of obvious illegals, no ids, no english, would be stopped and as long as they weren't caught in the act of crossing the border and as long as the driver had a valid license, the cops couldn't do anything. Yes some cops abuse their powers, but they do that anyway. That's a separate battle.
Yes they do. The Tea Party is a States Rights' revival movement. This law is a vehicle for them to vent frustration about the failure of the federal government to seal the borders.
What does this law have to do with Tea Party? Please read the "Contract From America": http://www.thecontract.org/ almost 1/2 million tea party supporters have voted and those ARE their priorities. Do you see anything to do with immigration in it?
Please don't exaggerate if you haven't read the law. The new Arizona law is essentially the same as the existing federal law that is not being enforced. The law gives police the right to ask for papers ONLY when they lawfully stop somebody. They CANNOT walk up to a random person on the street and check their immigration status. However, for example in case of traffic violation or something like that they can.
He was only selling lost property. Nothing more, nothing less. People do this all the time. Why the hell do so many people think he did something evil?
Because he sold something that didn't belong to him? You don't have to pick up lost property, but if you do, under California law, you take on an obligation to hand it back to the owner, or if you don't know who the owner is, to the police. Selling it is legally the same thing as selling property that someone gave you temporarily for safekeeping.
Pass a law saying "no torture, violence or killing, no exceptions for anyone", and presto, you get quite the revolution and shove society into dealing with the future.
Umm, that is pretty much the law anyway, unless you wish to ban using violence in self-defense or in law enforcement or in war which is crazy.
They ARE trying to put it in my backyard (Yucca Mountain) and I don't mind. However, since I don't get any power from nuclear plants, I think it's only fair that people who do should pay me a crapload of money for looking after their nuclear waste, which unfortunately they don't seem to be willing to do. Therefore I have to say the only good thing our soon to be retiring senator Reid did for Nevada was to help kill that plan.
In corporations people surfing porn all day are screwing that corporation's shareholders who are paying their salary. When gov't employees do the same guess who is getting screwed.
Those can't really be the primary criteria, can they? If so, put it inside the Yucca mountain nuclear waste storage site. It will be pretty safe there for a while.
That's not the point though. Do the local residents in those countries have to carry an ID to prove that they are in the country legally or face arrest? If they do, then I don't want it here.
Being a monopoly is not inherently bad. Google's near-monopoly on searching is not bad. What is bad is when that market share gets abused to stifle competition.
How is Google not using their "monopoly" on searching to for example take the market (i.e. advertising dollars) away from say MapQuest by integrating Google Maps into their search results? Here is a quote from the linked document:
"Other companies find it difficult, if not impossible, to compete with Google in offering the products Google provides for "free" with the subsidies generated from its monopolistic search revenues."
The question really is does Google have an actual monopoly in search, the way MS had in OS market. I for one don't think so, but if they did, then those guys might have a point.
Here is another fantastic idea. How about a law requiring the IRS to provide free software that is easy enough to use for the average person so we don't have to spend $250-300 billion (or 20% of the total taxes collected) annually on tax preparers? After all, the complex investments that are being talked about here are typically bought by people who should understand what they are buying, i.e. financial professionals, and who have a choice not to buy them if they don't. Not so with taxes.
I am sure that it is part of the advertising plan to be "forced" to withdraw sensational ads as a way of gaining extra publicity. I have never seen this ad, and only once heard about the Kin phone, but now I have been exposed (oh dear) to the campaign as a news item.
That's exactly what I thought. As far as I can tell it was ONE blogger who only said that there was something a bit creepy about the ad. Nobody would have noticed or cared until MS publicly withdrew the ad and apologized, at which point every single news outlet picked up the story in a way that's mostly sympathetic to MS and its new phone. Whether it was accidental or deliberate it worked out pretty well for Microsoft.
Oracle wasn't asking slashdot for advice on how to make open source profitable. It was asking the developers whose salary it pays to convince Oracle that that salary is worth paying. It is perfectly normal for a company to require the management of unprofitable product lines to provide a plan on making their products profitable in the future.
I don't have a citation, that's just my understanding. Hope any lawyers can chime in. A quick google search gives a million results that say the same thing, i.e. that you can be compelled to answer questions except those that would incriminate you personally, but I'm too lazy to find an authoritative source worth citing.
Not at all. True, in criminal cases claiming the 5th is not to be used as evidence of guilt by the court. Private citizens such as ourselves have no obligation not to infer guilt from it. In civil cases the silence CAN be used as evidence of guilt. Some quotes from SCOTUS justices (from wikipedia):
The Supreme Court has held that "the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976). "[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, 'Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.'" Id. at 319 (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-154 (1923)). "'Failure to contest an assertion...is considered evidence of acquiescence...if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 176 (1975)).
Further, the 5th can legally only be used to prevent self-incrimination. It is illegal to refuse to answer questions where the answer would not incriminate you. In essence it is an admission of guilt except that you refuse to provide the details.
I other words we have every right to assume she is guilty as hell. My torch is ready, where is the mob?
Slashdot Mirror
The law, as far as it is accurately represented in recent media reports (IANAL), says that the OWNER of the oil bears primary responsibility for cleanup. That will be BP. The relationship between BP and their contractors is their own business. It will still lend up being a complicated mess of lawsuits though.
It's sad that such meaningless statements are considered insightful by some. There is far more regulation of the economy now than there was in Nixon's time, so in what way exactly has US "swung to the right" since then? What "abuses of power" do you speak of and what do they have to do with anything? Economically, if you take the extreme "right" to be completely unregulated market and extreme "left" to be communist style central planning, the US has actually swung to the left and sadly continues moving in that direction.
I can imagine how the interview went: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a7C2EtErYQ
Are you sure you're not the scrawny guy who is asking the question in this clip? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU .
The point is that the law essentially doesn't give any major new powers to the police except to enable them check somebody's immigration status when they are dealing with that person anyway. There used to be a common and ridiculous situation where a van full of obvious illegals, no ids, no english, would be stopped and as long as they weren't caught in the act of crossing the border and as long as the driver had a valid license, the cops couldn't do anything. Yes some cops abuse their powers, but they do that anyway. That's a separate battle.
Yes they do. The Tea Party is a States Rights' revival movement. This law is a vehicle for them to vent frustration about the failure of the federal government to seal the borders.
What does this law have to do with Tea Party? Please read the "Contract From America": http://www.thecontract.org/ almost 1/2 million tea party supporters have voted and those ARE their priorities. Do you see anything to do with immigration in it?
Please don't exaggerate if you haven't read the law. The new Arizona law is essentially the same as the existing federal law that is not being enforced. The law gives police the right to ask for papers ONLY when they lawfully stop somebody. They CANNOT walk up to a random person on the street and check their immigration status. However, for example in case of traffic violation or something like that they can.
Do you realize that almost half of the questions on this Yes/No questionnaire are not Yes/No questions? (Yes/No)
He was only selling lost property. Nothing more, nothing less. People do this all the time. Why the hell do so many people think he did something evil?
Because he sold something that didn't belong to him? You don't have to pick up lost property, but if you do, under California law, you take on an obligation to hand it back to the owner, or if you don't know who the owner is, to the police. Selling it is legally the same thing as selling property that someone gave you temporarily for safekeeping.
Pass a law saying "no torture, violence or killing, no exceptions for anyone", and presto, you get quite the revolution and shove society into dealing with the future.
Umm, that is pretty much the law anyway, unless you wish to ban using violence in self-defense or in law enforcement or in war which is crazy.
They ARE trying to put it in my backyard (Yucca Mountain) and I don't mind. However, since I don't get any power from nuclear plants, I think it's only fair that people who do should pay me a crapload of money for looking after their nuclear waste, which unfortunately they don't seem to be willing to do. Therefore I have to say the only good thing our soon to be retiring senator Reid did for Nevada was to help kill that plan.
Yes he must apologize to people over 600 pounds!
In corporations people surfing porn all day are screwing that corporation's shareholders who are paying their salary. When gov't employees do the same guess who is getting screwed.
Those can't really be the primary criteria, can they? If so, put it inside the Yucca mountain nuclear waste storage site. It will be pretty safe there for a while.
That's not the point though. Do the local residents in those countries have to carry an ID to prove that they are in the country legally or face arrest? If they do, then I don't want it here.
You are not required to produce ID, but in most states you can be required to state your name.
Unless you live in Arizona and look Mexican. Well, not yet, but soon.
Being a monopoly is not inherently bad. Google's near-monopoly on searching is not bad. What is bad is when that market share gets abused to stifle competition.
How is Google not using their "monopoly" on searching to for example take the market (i.e. advertising dollars) away from say MapQuest by integrating Google Maps into their search results? Here is a quote from the linked document:
"Other companies find it difficult, if not impossible, to compete with Google in offering the products Google provides for "free" with the subsidies generated from its monopolistic search revenues."
The question really is does Google have an actual monopoly in search, the way MS had in OS market. I for one don't think so, but if they did, then those guys might have a point.
From wikipedia (yes I know): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_preparation It points to this document as source: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-878 (click on Full Report)
Here is another fantastic idea. How about a law requiring the IRS to provide free software that is easy enough to use for the average person so we don't have to spend $250-300 billion (or 20% of the total taxes collected) annually on tax preparers? After all, the complex investments that are being talked about here are typically bought by people who should understand what they are buying, i.e. financial professionals, and who have a choice not to buy them if they don't. Not so with taxes.
try talking about changing the h1b visa laws so that h1b visa holders can change companies when they want to
Umm, they can.
and get paid real us wages for work in the us
The law already requires that. The abuses arise from the difficulty in defining the "real us wages for work in the us".
I am sure that it is part of the advertising plan to be "forced" to withdraw sensational ads as a way of gaining extra publicity. I have never seen this ad, and only once heard about the Kin phone, but now I have been exposed (oh dear) to the campaign as a news item.
That's exactly what I thought. As far as I can tell it was ONE blogger who only said that there was something a bit creepy about the ad. Nobody would have noticed or cared until MS publicly withdrew the ad and apologized, at which point every single news outlet picked up the story in a way that's mostly sympathetic to MS and its new phone. Whether it was accidental or deliberate it worked out pretty well for Microsoft.
It would be easier to tell it's a parody if it actually contained some humor instead of mean spirited ranting.
Oracle wasn't asking slashdot for advice on how to make open source profitable. It was asking the developers whose salary it pays to convince Oracle that that salary is worth paying. It is perfectly normal for a company to require the management of unprofitable product lines to provide a plan on making their products profitable in the future.
I don't have a citation, that's just my understanding. Hope any lawyers can chime in. A quick google search gives a million results that say the same thing, i.e. that you can be compelled to answer questions except those that would incriminate you personally, but I'm too lazy to find an authoritative source worth citing.
Not at all. True, in criminal cases claiming the 5th is not to be used as evidence of guilt by the court. Private citizens such as ourselves have no obligation not to infer guilt from it. In civil cases the silence CAN be used as evidence of guilt. Some quotes from SCOTUS justices (from wikipedia):
The Supreme Court has held that "the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976). "[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, 'Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.'" Id. at 319 (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-154 (1923)). "'Failure to contest an assertion...is considered evidence of acquiescence...if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 176 (1975)).
Further, the 5th can legally only be used to prevent self-incrimination. It is illegal to refuse to answer questions where the answer would not incriminate you. In essence it is an admission of guilt except that you refuse to provide the details.
I other words we have every right to assume she is guilty as hell. My torch is ready, where is the mob?