Under the age of 21? Wow, so parents in New York can hit you for 3 years after you become an adult?
The law doesn't say anything about the child not being allowed to hit back. Hell, if one of my teachers raised hands to me in high school they'd find out right quick that you shouldn't strike someone who's 6'4" without being ready for the repercussions.
It's not absolute by virtue of Consequentialism not being absolute. So, you can show that a particular tenet of a particular religion is ethically wrong for your own set of beliefs, but you can't show that it's wrong for everybody else which is what I believe you wanted.
Oversimplified analogy: buying chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla would be wrong for me, as I find vanilla has a much better taste, but that doesn't mean my brother is wrong in getting chocolate for himself.
I think what could fix this would be an answer as to whether right and wrong are objective or subjective properties. In your example of ice cream flavors, that is clearly a subjective taste. If you could show that right and wrong are purely objective then the GPs post holds some good merit, but if right and wrong are subjective (a real possibility) then your counter wins out.
BUT, it doesn't fit comfortably in the palm the way the iPod Touch does.
I was more envisioning the device being cradled in the forearm.
I don't see the gain in capability that makes up for the pain of carrying around something else that doesn't fit in your pocket.
Think of it as a better media player for reading text and watching movies while traveling, say on a plane. That's where it's main benefit comes in, not necessarily as an everyday carryaround.
1 - How small are your arms, the thing is 9" wide, that's not overly large as far as a tablet is concerned. It seems that you have more issue with the tablet form as opposed to simply the iPad.
2 - The edges are rounded, that doesn't mean the whole back is rounded. Unless you're pushing on the edges of the device it probably won't swing back and forth.
I own a Sony PRS-600, a 1st gen Kindle and an Edge and I have never bought a single e-book because they are worth to me about 3-5 bucks a piece, not 10 bucks.
Why would you buy a kindle if you weren't going to buy the books? That just baffles me.
You are correct. He does not have the right. What this kind of rip off gives him however is the motivation. He is not the only one either. There will be many others who feels that these greedy bastards deserve what they get. Too bad about the poor authors caught in the middle.
Unless the person was lifting books from B&N or other bookstores before this all his statement (admittedly sarcastic) indicates is that he's gutless.
Or purchase the book in paperback where the price will hopefully be less. If not then 14.99 seems like a good deal as no other sales version of the book is cheaper.
At your local library -- if you bring it back in 2 weeks. Otherwise,no, it doesn't. You not liking their pricing structure does not give you the right to violate their copyright. (Unless you are Google, that is.)
Two weeks, I get to keep mine for pretty much as long as possible (except on a few select books with exceptionally high demand) by simply calling or logging in and indicating that I'd like to renew. No questions asked.
They should change the way the law currently stands and strip all personhood from corporations.
Does anyone know which of the following two statements more closely represents what the Supreme Court's recent decision follows?
1 - As current law stands, corporations have the same rights as persons.
2 - It is unconstitutional to deny corporations the rights of persons.
I sure hope it's option 1, as I'd like to see a law (and a constitutional amendment would be much more challenging) revoking the person rights of corporations.
End result, Pfizer was allowed to continue selling drugs to Medicare/Medicaid, but they, and their executives, got hit where it hurts -- the pocket books. Justice, in my mind at least, was served.
I'm sorry if I sound like a heartless bastard because I don't have pitty for men and women who make millions a month not being able to make that money for three months. Boo fucking hoo. I really don't feel sorry that they can't buy that new boat, or that new $100k+ car. From previous posts (which I know is a specious thing to rely on) the company made a net profit on the drug that they illegally marketed. Maybe they didn't make as much as they would have had they not been prosecuted (if that's what you can call this) but they didn't lose money on the bet they made of illegally marketing the drug.
Are you saying that by no means should a corporation should be held as liable for crimes? This is what businesses and corporations are constantly trying to achieve, especially the big ones. Commit crimes on a large scale, and then just find some moron among your employees to use as a scapegoat. No, please, no.
Corporation should still be held accountable to anti-trust laws and all laws governing corporate conduct as a corporate (not person) entity. Any form of fraud perpetrated by individuals (real persons) should be prosecuted under existing criminal law.
Corps get a lot of perks being classed as 'persons' without much of the responsibility. Corporations should be accountable for the actions of their employees.
And corporations never should have been given the rights of persons. This is probably the biggest mis-judgement that the Supreme Court has made in our generation.
Well put. The laws are in place to punish the guilty parties and it seems that the people responsible for enforcing those laws (or prosecuting them) are incapable or unwilling of it.
Why doesn't anyone have the balls to put some HURT on these assholes?
Two answers.
1 - Nobody in congress has any spine, let alone balls.
2 - The people who should be leveling the punishment are the people who get all the kickbacks and perks from these companies. Nobody has the guts to loss some of those free dinners and cars to do the right thing.
Easy solution, hold the CEOs accoutable for fellonies carried out by corporations. And carry also on some death penalty if needed, you'll see things change in a snap.
Better than that, because the Supreme Court said corporations have the same rights as citizens then their punishments should be the same. Through the corporation in jail, lock them down so they can't move anything around, no producing, freeze their assets, etc. for the amount of time that a typical jail sentence would last.
Now, I know that this is a stupid idea, all those people out of jobs, all needlessly lost productivity, but maybe it will make the Supreme Court realize that corporations can't and shouldn't be treated as regular citizens. They are not people, they wield power unlike any individual and need a different set of laws.
Sorry, no. We do accomplish the hope listed in that quote. Any company which directly challenges the government will be slapped down.
This is a government of the people (even though it sometimes doesn't feel that way) and every time that a company isn't held to legal federal / state regulations (the banks and SEC of most recent memory) or that company bribes a member of congress (because that's what a decent part lobbying is) they are directly challenging the people of the United States.
It's just amazing to me that a female lawyer would choose Thomas "women are subservient" Aquinas over Thomas Jefferson. If the thought processes of Aquinas had continued to remain dominant, she would have never had the chance to become a lawyer.
Hush, hush. You might get logic injected into that education reform and it appears that logic is a disgrace to america.
You're thinking of late-1990s voice codecs. More recent codecs, along with improved link-level compression, have reduced it down to 1.5 to 2.0 Kbps, with no perceptible loss in quality.
You've still only reduced the codec bitrate by a factor of ten, resulting in 900 kb. That makes a 10 minute conversation not absolutely miniscule compared to a page load.
I think the thought is that most (popular) console games don't have that longevity like MMORPGs. Players will buy MW2, BC2, and a whole bunch of other FPS and play all of them. Most people (it would seem, I don't play PC games much) won't buy multiple MMORPGs. And this slows down the market pushing publishers and developers to the higher sales volume console market.
Slashdot Mirror
Under the age of 21? Wow, so parents in New York can hit you for 3 years after you become an adult?
The law doesn't say anything about the child not being allowed to hit back. Hell, if one of my teachers raised hands to me in high school they'd find out right quick that you shouldn't strike someone who's 6'4" without being ready for the repercussions.
The place I see "racism" is in the very idea of the assumption that anyone from the south deserves to be denigrated and disrespected automatically
First, that assumption would be correct. Second, the word you're looking for is douche-baggery, not racism.
It's not absolute by virtue of Consequentialism not being absolute. So, you can show that a particular tenet of a particular religion is ethically wrong for your own set of beliefs, but you can't show that it's wrong for everybody else which is what I believe you wanted.
Oversimplified analogy: buying chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla would be wrong for me, as I find vanilla has a much better taste, but that doesn't mean my brother is wrong in getting chocolate for himself.
I think what could fix this would be an answer as to whether right and wrong are objective or subjective properties. In your example of ice cream flavors, that is clearly a subjective taste. If you could show that right and wrong are purely objective then the GPs post holds some good merit, but if right and wrong are subjective (a real possibility) then your counter wins out.
I had a weird experience when my arm was set but that was just the Ketamine.
You got ketamine for a broken arm? Damn, they just gave me some tylenol with codeine.
BUT, it doesn't fit comfortably in the palm the way the iPod Touch does.
I was more envisioning the device being cradled in the forearm.
I don't see the gain in capability that makes up for the pain of carrying around something else that doesn't fit in your pocket.
Think of it as a better media player for reading text and watching movies while traveling, say on a plane. That's where it's main benefit comes in, not necessarily as an everyday carryaround.
Hell, statistics should be a mandatory class taught in High School. It's far more applicable to everyday life than trig is.
But then how is little jimmy gonna know how tall the statue is on top of the building from 100 yards away.
I remember thinking that my Physics 1 class at the University level was really just an algebra/trig class in disguise.
You got that one backwards.
1 - How small are your arms, the thing is 9" wide, that's not overly large as far as a tablet is concerned. It seems that you have more issue with the tablet form as opposed to simply the iPad.
2 - The edges are rounded, that doesn't mean the whole back is rounded. Unless you're pushing on the edges of the device it probably won't swing back and forth.
I own a Sony PRS-600, a 1st gen Kindle and an Edge and I have never bought a single e-book because they are worth to me about 3-5 bucks a piece, not 10 bucks.
Why would you buy a kindle if you weren't going to buy the books? That just baffles me.
You are correct. He does not have the right. What this kind of rip off gives him however is the motivation. He is not the only one either. There will be many others who feels that these greedy bastards deserve what they get. Too bad about the poor authors caught in the middle.
Unless the person was lifting books from B&N or other bookstores before this all his statement (admittedly sarcastic) indicates is that he's gutless.
Therefore I have the right to take it for free.
Or purchase the book in paperback where the price will hopefully be less. If not then 14.99 seems like a good deal as no other sales version of the book is cheaper.
Therefore I have the right to take it for free.
At your local library -- if you bring it back in 2 weeks. Otherwise,no, it doesn't. You not liking their pricing structure does not give you the right to violate their copyright. (Unless you are Google, that is.)
Two weeks, I get to keep mine for pretty much as long as possible (except on a few select books with exceptionally high demand) by simply calling or logging in and indicating that I'd like to renew. No questions asked.
They should change the way the law currently stands and strip all personhood from corporations.
Does anyone know which of the following two statements more closely represents what the Supreme Court's recent decision follows?
1 - As current law stands, corporations have the same rights as persons.
2 - It is unconstitutional to deny corporations the rights of persons.
I sure hope it's option 1, as I'd like to see a law (and a constitutional amendment would be much more challenging) revoking the person rights of corporations.
End result, Pfizer was allowed to continue selling drugs to Medicare/Medicaid, but they, and their executives, got hit where it hurts -- the pocket books. Justice, in my mind at least, was served.
I'm sorry if I sound like a heartless bastard because I don't have pitty for men and women who make millions a month not being able to make that money for three months. Boo fucking hoo. I really don't feel sorry that they can't buy that new boat, or that new $100k+ car. From previous posts (which I know is a specious thing to rely on) the company made a net profit on the drug that they illegally marketed. Maybe they didn't make as much as they would have had they not been prosecuted (if that's what you can call this) but they didn't lose money on the bet they made of illegally marketing the drug.
Welcome to last century. It's just becoming so obvious that the densest people are finally realizing what's going on.
Or the kids that grew up in it are now old enough to understand.
Are you saying that by no means should a corporation should be held as liable for crimes? This is what businesses and corporations are constantly trying to achieve, especially the big ones. Commit crimes on a large scale, and then just find some moron among your employees to use as a scapegoat. No, please, no.
Corporation should still be held accountable to anti-trust laws and all laws governing corporate conduct as a corporate (not person) entity. Any form of fraud perpetrated by individuals (real persons) should be prosecuted under existing criminal law.
Corps get a lot of perks being classed as 'persons' without much of the responsibility. Corporations should be accountable for the actions of their employees.
And corporations never should have been given the rights of persons. This is probably the biggest mis-judgement that the Supreme Court has made in our generation.
Well put. The laws are in place to punish the guilty parties and it seems that the people responsible for enforcing those laws (or prosecuting them) are incapable or unwilling of it.
Why doesn't anyone have the balls to put some HURT on these assholes?
Two answers.
1 - Nobody in congress has any spine, let alone balls.
2 - The people who should be leveling the punishment are the people who get all the kickbacks and perks from these companies. Nobody has the guts to loss some of those free dinners and cars to do the right thing.
Easy solution, hold the CEOs accoutable for fellonies carried out by corporations. And carry also on some death penalty if needed, you'll see things change in a snap.
Better than that, because the Supreme Court said corporations have the same rights as citizens then their punishments should be the same. Through the corporation in jail, lock them down so they can't move anything around, no producing, freeze their assets, etc. for the amount of time that a typical jail sentence would last.
Now, I know that this is a stupid idea, all those people out of jobs, all needlessly lost productivity, but maybe it will make the Supreme Court realize that corporations can't and shouldn't be treated as regular citizens. They are not people, they wield power unlike any individual and need a different set of laws.
Sorry, no. We do accomplish the hope listed in that quote. Any company which directly challenges the government will be slapped down.
This is a government of the people (even though it sometimes doesn't feel that way) and every time that a company isn't held to legal federal / state regulations (the banks and SEC of most recent memory) or that company bribes a member of congress (because that's what a decent part lobbying is) they are directly challenging the people of the United States.
It's just amazing to me that a female lawyer would choose Thomas "women are subservient" Aquinas over Thomas Jefferson. If the thought processes of Aquinas had continued to remain dominant, she would have never had the chance to become a lawyer.
Hush, hush. You might get logic injected into that education reform and it appears that logic is a disgrace to america.
You're thinking of late-1990s voice codecs. More recent codecs, along with improved link-level compression, have reduced it down to 1.5 to 2.0 Kbps, with no perceptible loss in quality.
You've still only reduced the codec bitrate by a factor of ten, resulting in 900 kb. That makes a 10 minute conversation not absolutely miniscule compared to a page load.
I think the thought is that most (popular) console games don't have that longevity like MMORPGs. Players will buy MW2, BC2, and a whole bunch of other FPS and play all of them. Most people (it would seem, I don't play PC games much) won't buy multiple MMORPGs. And this slows down the market pushing publishers and developers to the higher sales volume console market.
I find it hard to believe I'm having less fun in MW2 because it's only DX9.
No, you're probably having less fun in MW2 because it's not Bad Company 2.