You are ignoring that homosexuality is between consenting adults (the type that is legal anyway - homosexual rape isn't legal for example). Whereas bestiality and pedophilia are not. Which is a pretty significant difference making your "only difference" claim absurd.
You'll have to point out the part where I proposed forming a mob and restraining strange people. Or are you making shit up?
Understanding the causes and trying to mitigate them in the future has exactly jack shit to do with whether or not the person involved is a "complete scumbag".
You declare the person a scumbag and declare that what was "going on in their lives" does not excuse their behavour or make them any less of a scumbag and also try and understand causes. We do this all the time, so I'm a bit surprised you could be so incredibly stupid as to not notice.
They are irrelevant. People who commit mass murder especially of random civilians are complete scumbags. It doesn't matter if their daddy touched them or if they are going through a tough divorce or if their favorite TV show got cancelled or whatever it is "going on in their lives" that you think justifies mass murder.
If you want to kill yourself, go right ahead. Don't take 150 other people most of whom you have never met with you - certainly don't expect not to be called a scumbag if you do.
Bullshit. From the article: "Students paid up to $15,000 for IIPM’s courses."
So they can plunk down $15,000 in fees but can't "afford data charges" to do a tiny bit of non-wikipedia research on what that $15,000 is going to get them?
Writing lots of small strings to disk one by one, is faster than building an in memory string up from those small strings one by one - reallocating a larger chunk of memory and copying the entire current string on each little step.
It's almost like memory allocation and copying data over and over might slow things down a bit over simply not doing that at all.
Honestly the paper is completely retarded. Only a moron would not expect that result.
If stealing the milk is a felony. And the death was caused by the stealing of the milk then sure.
But that wouldn't be the case in your example, since it's not a result of the felony (and there's not a felony start with unless that's really expensive milk in most jurisdictions).
And no you can't shoot everyone in the bank unless you someone make it appear like that was all caused by the robbery - which is going to be rather difficult. And even then someone else getting charged doesn't mean you don't as well.
If there was no intent it's likely going to be a murder charge. "faces up to five years in prison" probably means there's a felony charge in there somewhere. So the felony murder rule would trigger (both illinois and Nevada have one). There is no "attempted' in that of course, someone would have to get killed.
Then the robber is guilty under the felony murder rule.
In fact, if there were two robbers, and the teller happens to have a gun and shoots one of them then the other one is guilty under the felony murder rule.
If someone dies due to the commission of a felony those committing the crime are guilty of murder (assuming they get convicted etc).
American police love to escalate conflict and to use their toys. There are also no consequences when they do so.
See random news reports for numerous examples. Eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... for a sheriff who makes jokes after a flashbang was tossed into a baby's crib with a baby in it because apparently that's not something important enough to be serious about.
Unless the person doing the "swatting" was somehow described by eye witnesses (given the nature of swatting that seems reasonably unlikely) as drunk, smoking, and with a tattoo then she is an idiot for somehow thinking those three traits have anything to with his guilt or innocence.
Major depression is not a person and hence isn't being referenced by the "no one" claim.
If I die from cancer it is 100% my fault and not the fault of the people who told me "not to worry about it" and "doctor's are terrible, don't see them".
Cops are not liable for anything like that. They have no duty to protect people from harm, self inflicted or otherwise. https://www.law.cornell.edu/su... being the key decision.
But they'll swarm on anything involving a someone who is mentally ill - and being suicidal qualifies for that - since there's a good chance they'll get to get their jollies shooting the person who likely won't follow instructions because they are mentally ill.
Putting them close enough to being opposite one another (56+139 isn't 180 but close enough for this sillyness). Thus if the hot critical fuel melts its way through the entire planet it will come out near Uruguay.
No external barriers to competition? That competitors are prevented from entering the market because doing so is "completely forbidden" seems a pretty large barrier.
Do you really think that if the government didn't outlaw all the recreational drugs that it does that not a single big pharma company would be in on the action of heroin sales and distribution? Or at least in the "designed drug" field (they do love a patent after all)?
Do you really think that Bob the meth cook could compete with Pfizer and its economies of scale if Pfizer could in fact legally make and market the stuff and include it in the revenue and profit lines of their SEC reports?
"Reckless driving" is a specific offense in the US (and that's where Jobs was doing those two things - in CA in particular the law is "Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving."). It does in fact have to mean dangerous since that's what disregard for safety means.
if the poster didn't mean that, then they shouldn't have used the legal term for that offense and instead picked another some other synonym for "don't give a shit".
After all, wealthier people have been shown to drive more recklessly than those who make less money. For example Steve Jobs was known to park in handicapped spots and drive around without license plates.
Parking in a handicapped spot is clearly not driving more recklessly - being parked is not driving at all.
Driving around without license plates is also not driving more recklessly - though at least that actually is driving.
At least when giving examples make then actually examples of your damn claim.
During the last 10 millennia (10,000 years), plates haven't shifted more than about 1km. Britian separated from the European continent due to sea levels rising with the decline of the last ice age.
I meant that plate tectonics are relativel new and thus not the real determinate of what "Europe" is - and given that that Europe and Asia are not distinct continents in terms of plate tectonics makes it pretty clear that those plates are not what are being referred to when people talk about Europe.
Speaking of Hitler, the copyright on Mein Kampf was due to expire in many jurisdictions this year (unless terms are extended again).
Damn it! I've already written the above paragraph, I'm not wasting that on clicking Cancel...
New Zealand actually manages not to be on he same continental plate as Australia (of course if you are talking about "for several millennia" you aren't talking actual plates but just general closest big land mass will do).
Maybe not interestingly, but anyway, Lord Howe Island is part of Australia in a country sense but is actually on the Zealandia microcontinent.
What that has to do with copyright is anyones guess:)
Slashdot Mirror
It's the dead level of dead, obviously.
It lies between "pretty dead" and "extra dead".
No one has the right not to be mocked.
You are ignoring that homosexuality is between consenting adults (the type that is legal anyway - homosexual rape isn't legal for example). Whereas bestiality and pedophilia are not. Which is a pretty significant difference making your "only difference" claim absurd.
That would defeat the entire purpose of the lock state.
You'll have to point out the part where I proposed forming a mob and restraining strange people. Or are you making shit up?
Understanding the causes and trying to mitigate them in the future has exactly jack shit to do with whether or not the person involved is a "complete scumbag".
You declare the person a scumbag and declare that what was "going on in their lives" does not excuse their behavour or make them any less of a scumbag and also try and understand causes. We do this all the time, so I'm a bit surprised you could be so incredibly stupid as to not notice.
They are irrelevant. People who commit mass murder especially of random civilians are complete scumbags. It doesn't matter if their daddy touched them or if they are going through a tough divorce or if their favorite TV show got cancelled or whatever it is "going on in their lives" that you think justifies mass murder.
If you want to kill yourself, go right ahead. Don't take 150 other people most of whom you have never met with you - certainly don't expect not to be called a scumbag if you do.
Bullshit. From the article: "Students paid up to $15,000 for IIPM’s courses."
So they can plunk down $15,000 in fees but can't "afford data charges" to do a tiny bit of non-wikipedia research on what that $15,000 is going to get them?
Again, bullshit.
Writing lots of small strings to disk one by one, is faster than building an in memory string up from those small strings one by one - reallocating a larger chunk of memory and copying the entire current string on each little step.
It's almost like memory allocation and copying data over and over might slow things down a bit over simply not doing that at all.
Honestly the paper is completely retarded. Only a moron would not expect that result.
If stealing the milk is a felony. And the death was caused by the stealing of the milk then sure.
But that wouldn't be the case in your example, since it's not a result of the felony (and there's not a felony start with unless that's really expensive milk in most jurisdictions).
And no you can't shoot everyone in the bank unless you someone make it appear like that was all caused by the robbery - which is going to be rather difficult. And even then someone else getting charged doesn't mean you don't as well.
If there was no intent it's likely going to be a murder charge. "faces up to five years in prison" probably means there's a felony charge in there somewhere. So the felony murder rule would trigger (both illinois and Nevada have one). There is no "attempted' in that of course, someone would have to get killed.
Then the robber is guilty under the felony murder rule.
In fact, if there were two robbers, and the teller happens to have a gun and shoots one of them then the other one is guilty under the felony murder rule.
If someone dies due to the commission of a felony those committing the crime are guilty of murder (assuming they get convicted etc).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... is a reasonably famous example.
American police love to escalate conflict and to use their toys. There are also no consequences when they do so.
See random news reports for numerous examples. Eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... for a sheriff who makes jokes after a flashbang was tossed into a baby's crib with a baby in it because apparently that's not something important enough to be serious about.
Any job that can't accept me how I am isn't a job i want to work at.
Good for you.
Lots of people work at jobs they don't want to work at because they would prefer to eat and have somewhere to live than to starve in the rain.
Unless the person doing the "swatting" was somehow described by eye witnesses (given the nature of swatting that seems reasonably unlikely) as drunk, smoking, and with a tattoo then she is an idiot for somehow thinking those three traits have anything to with his guilt or innocence.
Major depression is not a person and hence isn't being referenced by the "no one" claim.
If I die from cancer it is 100% my fault and not the fault of the people who told me "not to worry about it" and "doctor's are terrible, don't see them".
Cops are not liable for anything like that. They have no duty to protect people from harm, self inflicted or otherwise. https://www.law.cornell.edu/su... being the key decision.
But they'll swarm on anything involving a someone who is mentally ill - and being suicidal qualifies for that - since there's a good chance they'll get to get their jollies shooting the person who likely won't follow instructions because they are mentally ill.
Uruguay is at 35 S and Japan is at 35 N.
Uruguay is at 56 W and Japan is at 139 E.
Putting them close enough to being opposite one another (56+139 isn't 180 but close enough for this sillyness). Thus if the hot critical fuel melts its way through the entire planet it will come out near Uruguay.
Because reporting the issue would have magically made them be able to reach emergency services.
No external barriers to competition? That competitors are prevented from entering the market because doing so is "completely forbidden" seems a pretty large barrier.
Do you really think that if the government didn't outlaw all the recreational drugs that it does that not a single big pharma company would be in on the action of heroin sales and distribution? Or at least in the "designed drug" field (they do love a patent after all)?
Do you really think that Bob the meth cook could compete with Pfizer and its economies of scale if Pfizer could in fact legally make and market the stuff and include it in the revenue and profit lines of their SEC reports?
"Reckless driving" is a specific offense in the US (and that's where Jobs was doing those two things - in CA in particular the law is "Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving."). It does in fact have to mean dangerous since that's what disregard for safety means.
if the poster didn't mean that, then they shouldn't have used the legal term for that offense and instead picked another some other synonym for "don't give a shit".
Parking in a handicapped spot is clearly not driving more recklessly - being parked is not driving at all.
Driving around without license plates is also not driving more recklessly - though at least that actually is driving.
At least when giving examples make then actually examples of your damn claim.
Continental drift and how it influences copyright law.
I sensible topic if there ever was one, but yes I think I'm also done :)
I meant that plate tectonics are relativel new and thus not the real determinate of what "Europe" is - and given that that Europe and Asia are not distinct continents in terms of plate tectonics makes it pretty clear that those plates are not what are being referred to when people talk about Europe.
Damn it! I've already written the above paragraph, I'm not wasting that on clicking Cancel...
New Zealand actually manages not to be on he same continental plate as Australia (of course if you are talking about "for several millennia" you aren't talking actual plates but just general closest big land mass will do).
Maybe not interestingly, but anyway, Lord Howe Island is part of Australia in a country sense but is actually on the Zealandia microcontinent.
What that has to do with copyright is anyones guess :)
Europe is a continent. We usually assign islands to their nearest continent.