So if (1) can buy (2) and (2) gives you (3), then simplifying: (1) buys (3), or money buys happiness.
And I would disagree you can take care of a family on almost any income, far less the $75K. Most money spent by North Americans is just wasted, and $75K seems like a good number to give a persona security.
At least for Canada, where I live. not sure how that would work for the US with health care how it is.
But they are both the result of government regulation.
The government regulation that says, unsafe work conditions are not allowed, costs oil companies money and they would not have as safe conditions if the government did not enforce it.
Putting aside the issue of net neutrality it is very similar situation in my opinion.
But either way are you actually saying that any company should be able to do whatever it wants, as long as the government does not pay it to do otherwise.
For example: I could start up a dog poop removal business. and when I remove the poop from a house that pays me to do that I just throw it on the neighbours yard? for me it is a win/win. and sure the law forbids this, but by your logic, laws should not apply to businesses.
It is not necessarily unfair. Even if I do not agree in regulating the net. business need to deal with the unpleasant results of their business as well as making money. The oil companies for example are not paid by the government to run safe rigs and to clean up their spills, the government forces them to do that if they want to remain in the oil business.
"The defendant is legally bound to respond to the complaint. If we didn't have it this way, defendants would just systematically ignore complaints against them and keep doing whatever the hell they wanted"
I disagree, since not defending oneself is likely to end up with you losing, you should just not have to waste your time defending yourself if the claims are ridiculous and unfounded. and no matter how the law works evidence should always be heard before a verdict if passed.
It sounds like the main problem is that civil court does not investigate, meaning the best speaker, and not the person with truth on their hands, seems to have a huge advantage.
"If there is nobody to point out that the party is innocent, why should the judge just assume that?"
because a judge should be able to think for him/herself and be able to make logical conclusions based on evidence.
and where is the innocent before proven guilty, it sounds like the court system is designed around you are guilty unless you prove to the judge that you are innocent.
But you are right this is based off of hindsight, but I still think that I am right and that even without hindsight a competent legal system would of handled this case correctly.
So you are saying that is is completely fine for a judge to fine a company 11 million when given no evidence that they were guilty? "they didn't really need to attach any when filing the lawsuit (actually, doing so is usually improper)"
and sure typos happen, but I would hope that when uncovering the truth of a trial not only would the judge want to confirm that the claimed thing happened but that the defendant did it. and that this would need to be done in every case, even if it seems obvious.
I agree, where is the innocent until proven guilty. it seems the court system is based around a system of "you are guilty until you prove that you are not".
Granted I do not know any of the laws that govern courts. But if a suit against you is so ridiculous, such that any normal person could spend 1 minute of his time to figure out that is it false, then you should not have to even bother defending yourself.
Is that not a bit much, so much that most people/websites would just have to declare bankruptcy. How is that a fair judgment, simple because they did not respond to completely unfounded and false claims about themselves. and even if they did sue the right people, that is way to high.
If you ask me it is the judge that should be fined, are they not supposed to have some minimum amount of evidence about the truth of a matter before they pass judgment.
"Lichens aren’t only frugal and robust, they jug out because of their very low sensibility against frost. Some lichens, in an experiment, survived a bath in liquid nitrogen at minus 195 degrees." (http://library.thinkquest.org/26442/html/life/plant.html)
But is that not the exact same problem that had with water on that island, that is the point of the plants. not that it would work, I am not convinced that anything on earth has a chance to adapt that to mars quickly enough to survive, at least nothing that would have a chance to do any good.
Correct me if I am wrong here but is that not totally up to the specific applications? The OS would ask all the running programs to close, but it would be up to the programs themselves to save the content if applicable.
Meaning people in Chile can throttle and/or block anyone/thing coming from outside their country? Or just that Chile does not plan to (because it cannot) make other countries follow its examples and therefor cannot guarantee net neutrality from outside the country?
Slashdot Mirror
So if (1) can buy (2) and (2) gives you (3), then simplifying: (1) buys (3), or money buys happiness.
And I would disagree you can take care of a family on almost any income, far less the $75K.
Most money spent by North Americans is just wasted, and $75K seems like a good number to give a persona security.
At least for Canada, where I live. not sure how that would work for the US with health care how it is.
Well I believe most of the controversy is about the girls that are forced to become prostitutes, not the ones that decide to on their own.
Was the articles about YouTube not having to pay (any/much) money for bandwidth and therefor not actually costing google any/much money incorrect?
I thought that google losing over a million a day was proved to be false?
Are the ISPs required to monitor all the data you download, after it is downloaded and on your computer?
No they just handle their side of it, when the data goes through them into your computer.
As oil companies need to make their workplaces safe and not cause huge environmental disasters.
But they are both the result of government regulation.
The government regulation that says, unsafe work conditions are not allowed, costs oil companies money and they would not have as safe conditions if the government did not enforce it.
Putting aside the issue of net neutrality it is very similar situation in my opinion.
But the government is not requesting, it is demanding.
which is law, or close enough to it.
But either way are you actually saying that any company should be able to do whatever it wants, as long as the government does not pay it to do otherwise.
For example: I could start up a dog poop removal business. and when I remove the poop from a house that pays me to do that I just throw it on the neighbours yard?
for me it is a win/win.
and sure the law forbids this, but by your logic, laws should not apply to businesses.
Well you could say the same of ISPs, the government is a huge customer of most industries and tend to pass pro industry laws.
It is not necessarily unfair.
Even if I do not agree in regulating the net.
business need to deal with the unpleasant results of their business as well as making money.
The oil companies for example are not paid by the government to run safe rigs and to clean up their spills, the government forces them to do that if they want to remain in the oil business.
"The defendant is legally bound to respond to the complaint. If we didn't have it this way, defendants would just systematically ignore complaints against them and keep doing whatever the hell they wanted"
I disagree, since not defending oneself is likely to end up with you losing, you should just not have to waste your time defending yourself if the claims are ridiculous and unfounded.
and no matter how the law works evidence should always be heard before a verdict if passed.
It sounds like the main problem is that civil court does not investigate, meaning the best speaker, and not the person with truth on their hands, seems to have a huge advantage.
"If there is nobody to point out that the party is innocent, why should the judge just assume that?"
because a judge should be able to think for him/herself and be able to make logical conclusions based on evidence.
and where is the innocent before proven guilty, it sounds like the court system is designed around you are guilty unless you prove to the judge that you are innocent.
But you are right this is based off of hindsight, but I still think that I am right and that even without hindsight a competent legal system would of handled this case correctly.
So you are saying that is is completely fine for a judge to fine a company 11 million when given no evidence that they were guilty?
"they didn't really need to attach any when filing the lawsuit (actually, doing so is usually improper)"
and sure typos happen, but I would hope that when uncovering the truth of a trial not only would the judge want to confirm that the claimed thing happened but that the defendant did it.
and that this would need to be done in every case, even if it seems obvious.
Well I would think paying attention to the name of the defendant would be a normal thing to do.
and I would guess all the evidence given very obviously showed the it came from TheDirty.com and not TheDirt.com
Which makes sense when their is actually a question of the guilt of the party.
But when it should be obvious to everyone that the the absent party is innocent, I think this is an obviously flawed way to go about doing it.
I agree, where is the innocent until proven guilty.
it seems the court system is based around a system of "you are guilty until you prove that you are not".
Granted I do not know any of the laws that govern courts.
But if a suit against you is so ridiculous, such that any normal person could spend 1 minute of his time to figure out that is it false, then you should not have to even bother defending yourself.
Is that not a bit much, so much that most people/websites would just have to declare bankruptcy.
How is that a fair judgment, simple because they did not respond to completely unfounded and false claims about themselves.
and even if they did sue the right people, that is way to high.
If you ask me it is the judge that should be fined, are they not supposed to have some minimum amount of evidence about the truth of a matter before they pass judgment.
Well it would have to be an extremophile.
"Lichens aren’t only frugal and robust, they jug out because of their very low sensibility against frost. Some lichens, in an experiment, survived a bath in liquid nitrogen at minus 195 degrees." (http://library.thinkquest.org/26442/html/life/plant.html)
But is that not the exact same problem that had with water on that island, that is the point of the plants.
not that it would work, I am not convinced that anything on earth has a chance to adapt that to mars quickly enough to survive, at least nothing that would have a chance to do any good.
not that life that would help could not exist.
If I had to guess he was actually probably not jailed for writing a letter in blood, but for threatening and destroying property.
Correct me if I am wrong here but is that not totally up to the specific applications?
The OS would ask all the running programs to close, but it would be up to the programs themselves to save the content if applicable.
countries can make laws about anything they want to.
and their are lots of laws that exist to make other laws illegal.
Meaning people in Chile can throttle and/or block anyone/thing coming from outside their country?
Or just that Chile does not plan to (because it cannot) make other countries follow its examples and therefor cannot guarantee net neutrality from outside the country?
and this is not its only issue.
It has some multi hard drive issue (i think) that adds 20 seconds to my normally 6 second bootup time.
But the big action flicks are made for the masses who would not like them to have complicated plots that they have never seen before.
The only way they would ever make the money back to pay for the film is to pander to the lowest common denominator.
Big Budget will never do unique plots.