I would argue it comes down to the media more than anything. See, they publish all these stories about stupid lawsuits, but make them sound like they actually stand a chance. Then they fail to mention that a few months later the lawsuit was tossed out or lost at summary judgment and fell apart.
So what they've done (quite successfully) is make everyone think that all people do in the US is sue each other to death, but fact is that most of these lawsuits like this you hear about never go anywhere, and just end up ruining the lawyers' reputations. Then the media stories turn the public against the legal system and lawyers in general.
When business is bad, you just pick on lawyers and things turn around it seems. It works for the media and politicians at least.
Break into the 911 system and cause several people to die because they couldn't get help, and it's murder.
Most states already have felony murder statutes, that basically say that if someone is killed while you are committing a felony, even if you didn't pull the trigger, you can be charged with it.
For instance, you are robbing a bank and a customer trying to stop you shoots your accomplice. You could be charged with the murder of your accomplice.
An example statute from Ohio:
"(B) No person shall cause the death of another as a proximate result of the offender's committing or attempting to commit an offense of violence that is a felony of the first or second degree " (Ohio Rev. Code 2903.02)
In other words, if your commission of a felony promixately caused the death of another, you're guilty of murder.
So, the things you propose, already do exist in many places.
Believe it or not, the law bestows a lot of duties on a lot of different people. One of these is the duty to prevent harm to others in certain circumstances.
It will be a question of law as to whether or not such a legal duty exists in this case.
Other examples:
You have a duty to prevent harm to people on your property. This doesn't mean you have to jump in front of bullets coming out of a car driving by, but you do have to make sure your sidewalks aren't covered in ice.
Ah, just realized I misinterpreted the data myself. Why doesn't opensecrets provide some overall statistics with all these numbers they've got?
Either way, if you browse around the site you will see that the Republican Party does manage to get a lot more money than the Democratic Party. But, like the grandparent did, it is easy to take some statistics, such as "the top 9 donors are all Democratic" and make it look like the opposite. The Democrats just have some large organizations that support them; Republican Money is spread out more.
I should add that even though 9 of those 10 overall donors support mostly Democratic candidates, that out of the top 68 donors over the same time period, 59% of the money went to Republicans; with Republicans getting 62-65% since 1996. Party break down of the data.
That data you cite regarding political contributions is wildly inaccurate. It is a list of top contributors to specific members of Congress for 2004. Not surprisingly then, is that John Kerry's supporters hold all of those positions. So what you've got is presidential campaign money mixed in with statistics for Congress.
A better index to use would be the top donors since 1989.
The top contributors, which isn't surprising given the number of people they employ, are the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (think of all those police officers and firefighters); the National Association of Realtors (perhaps surprising to be this high on the list), the National Education Association (teachers), and coming in fourth is the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
Big businesses are absent from this list, which might surprise some people, until they realize that almost every top individual donor sits in a pretty high position in their company.
After reading the rest of the article, I had the impression that apparently if a patent is first rejected and then reinstated it is seen as "stronger." I don't know how or why, but that's what it seemed to say to me. Perhaps the problem is with the journalist?
Getting someone's live hand over a scanner doesn't require a person to consciously divulge any information.
So, it is a lot different than getting a password out of someone. I can beat you all day and you'll never tell me the password. I can knock you unconscious and drag your limp body over to the scanner and place your hand on it without your help.
Which is why usually fingerprints are good enough to get a warrant (probably cause), whereupon other evidence comes to light that is much more solid. But good luck getting a conviction on just an old fingerprint anymore.
showing that of America's 285 million TVs only 12 percent (33.6 million) are used for watching OTA broadcasts.
The actual data was that about 89% of households either subscribe to cable, satellite, both, or do not have an antenna, cable or satellite. This does not mean that only 12% of TVs are used for watching OTA broadcasts. A good chunk of the 87% that have cable and/or satellite probably also use an antenna to receive certain local channels. That statistic is surprisingly missing.
Just a poor conclusion drawn from too little data, move along.
Many satellite providers charge extra to recieve local channels, so just about everyone I know still uses their good ol' antenna to receive local channels and switches back and forth between the two.
I was merely asking if such things were possible. Also, your comment does not address the possibility that a human could be involved in the process and therefore influence the location of stories and/or story selection.
this is the authoritative answer, i have worked on this site, all your conjecture is BS.
Remind me to put this at the end of all my comments, it really adds authority to what you have to say.
I don't see any indication that Yahoo News is automatically pulled from major sites in the same manner that Google is.
Nor is there any indication that they couldn't choose to give a certain story a higher ranking if they wanted to.
Do you have any evidence that a human being is not involved in the story selection/ranking process or that there is no way that Yahoo News could modify as necessary?
Who determines who are the good guys and bad guys? IMHO, if they're insecure, they're not as good of guys as you might think.
I applaud him for looking into such concerns for all companies, not just those some people might label as "evil."
Just because you're fond of a company or person, doesn't mean you should give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to security.
Think credit card companies. People used to trust them, so they didn't worry about security too much, and figured the credit card companies cared enough about security (since it costs them a lot of money if there is a breach) that they would take care of any problems on their own. Now we know that isn't true. Perhaps if we had been probing them more intensely in the past, such problems could have been fixed at a much earlier stage and before widespread security breaches occurred.
Some things are too important to rely upon the word or reputation of a company regarding. I'd say security and privacy rank right up there.
As a former swimmer myself, I can tell you that a dolphin kick is much faster through the water than a standard kick. This is why a few years ago the rules were changed to allow a dolphin kick underwater off of the start and off of the wall on turns for all except breaststroke.
If you watch the olympics you will see they almost all use a dolphin kick off the start and wall. This isn't because they want to go slower.
The person at Sony said what customers really want is choice. Actually, most customers don't want choice, or at least they don't want to begiven choices that just get in their way.
They want to feel like they made a choice. That way they made the decision. If there is only one manufacturer of a product, they feel like they had no choice but to buy that one product. If there are 5 to choose from, even if they buy the same product, they've still made a "choice" and are happier about buying it.
Think about it, if you're at the grocery store and you want to buy ketchup, you're probably going to buy your favorite brand, but wouldn't you feel a little weird if that was the only brand of ketchup anyone carried?
Slashdot Mirror
My floppy drive is just another way for dust to get inside my computer.
Getting those special hole punchers and converting those 5 1/4" 360KB floppys to instant 720KB- Instant double density!
A drill worked just fine for me.
I would argue it comes down to the media more than anything. See, they publish all these stories about stupid lawsuits, but make them sound like they actually stand a chance. Then they fail to mention that a few months later the lawsuit was tossed out or lost at summary judgment and fell apart.
So what they've done (quite successfully) is make everyone think that all people do in the US is sue each other to death, but fact is that most of these lawsuits like this you hear about never go anywhere, and just end up ruining the lawyers' reputations. Then the media stories turn the public against the legal system and lawyers in general.
When business is bad, you just pick on lawyers and things turn around it seems. It works for the media and politicians at least.
taught his followers to turn the other cheek
then
I can't see anything in his actions that could be defined as "passive."
hmm?
I think you're misunderstanding me here. The two options as I see it are capital punishment or life in prison without the possibility of parole.
In neither of those cases are you going to have a repeat offender.
It may or may not be a deterrant, but it definitely cuts down on repeat offenders.
Because the alternative doesn't?
Break into the 911 system and cause several people to die because they couldn't get help, and it's murder.
Most states already have felony murder statutes, that basically say that if someone is killed while you are committing a felony, even if you didn't pull the trigger, you can be charged with it.
For instance, you are robbing a bank and a customer trying to stop you shoots your accomplice. You could be charged with the murder of your accomplice.
An example statute from Ohio:
"(B) No person shall cause the death of another as a proximate result of the offender's committing or attempting to commit an offense of violence that is a felony of the first or second degree "
(Ohio Rev. Code 2903.02)
In other words, if your commission of a felony promixately caused the death of another, you're guilty of murder.
So, the things you propose, already do exist in many places.
Believe it or not, the law bestows a lot of duties on a lot of different people. One of these is the duty to prevent harm to others in certain circumstances.
It will be a question of law as to whether or not such a legal duty exists in this case.
Other examples:
You have a duty to prevent harm to people on your property. This doesn't mean you have to jump in front of bullets coming out of a car driving by, but you do have to make sure your sidewalks aren't covered in ice.
Why don't we hold companies and individuals criminally resposible for this kinds of abuse of the legal system?
We do, if they lose, they can end up paying the legal fees of the winning party.
If the lawsuit was frivolous to begin with, the lawyer can be sanctioned, fined, and made to pay the other party's legal fees.
Ah, just realized I misinterpreted the data myself. Why doesn't opensecrets provide some overall statistics with all these numbers they've got?
Either way, if you browse around the site you will see that the Republican Party does manage to get a lot more money than the Democratic Party. But, like the grandparent did, it is easy to take some statistics, such as "the top 9 donors are all Democratic" and make it look like the opposite. The Democrats just have some large organizations that support them; Republican Money is spread out more.
I should add that even though 9 of those 10 overall donors support mostly Democratic candidates, that out of the top 68 donors over the same time period, 59% of the money went to Republicans; with Republicans getting 62-65% since 1996. Party break down of the data.
That data you cite regarding political contributions is wildly inaccurate. It is a list of top contributors to specific members of Congress for 2004. Not surprisingly then, is that John Kerry's supporters hold all of those positions. So what you've got is presidential campaign money mixed in with statistics for Congress.
A better index to use would be the top donors since 1989.
The top contributors, which isn't surprising given the number of people they employ, are the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (think of all those police officers and firefighters); the National Association of Realtors (perhaps surprising to be this high on the list), the National Education Association (teachers), and coming in fourth is the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
Big businesses are absent from this list, which might surprise some people, until they realize that almost every top individual donor sits in a pretty high position in their company.
After reading the rest of the article, I had the impression that apparently if a patent is first rejected and then reinstated it is seen as "stronger." I don't know how or why, but that's what it seemed to say to me. Perhaps the problem is with the journalist?
Getting someone's live hand over a scanner doesn't require a person to consciously divulge any information.
So, it is a lot different than getting a password out of someone. I can beat you all day and you'll never tell me the password. I can knock you unconscious and drag your limp body over to the scanner and place your hand on it without your help.
Stupid typos.
Which is why usually fingerprints are good enough to get a warrant (probably cause), whereupon other evidence comes to light that is much more solid. But good luck getting a conviction on just an old fingerprint anymore.
But you don't want to have to do this every week, for practical and security reasons.
It'd be like changing your password every week, automatically, doesn't seem like so bad of an idea. Just a pain to maintain.
showing that of America's 285 million TVs only 12 percent (33.6 million) are used for watching OTA broadcasts.
The actual data was that about 89% of households either subscribe to cable, satellite, both, or do not have an antenna, cable or satellite. This does not mean that only 12% of TVs are used for watching OTA broadcasts. A good chunk of the 87% that have cable and/or satellite probably also use an antenna to receive certain local channels. That statistic is surprisingly missing.
Just a poor conclusion drawn from too little data, move along.
Many satellite providers charge extra to recieve local channels, so just about everyone I know still uses their good ol' antenna to receive local channels and switches back and forth between the two.
I was merely asking if such things were possible. Also, your comment does not address the possibility that a human could be involved in the process and therefore influence the location of stories and/or story selection.
this is the authoritative answer, i have worked on this site, all your conjecture is BS.
Remind me to put this at the end of all my comments, it really adds authority to what you have to say.
I don't see any indication that Yahoo News is automatically pulled from major sites in the same manner that Google is.
Nor is there any indication that they couldn't choose to give a certain story a higher ranking if they wanted to.
Do you have any evidence that a human being is not involved in the story selection/ranking process or that there is no way that Yahoo News could modify as necessary?
They are morans.
I believe the correct term would be "Moranians," but are you referring to people from Moran, Kansas; Moran, Michigan; Moran, Texas; or Moran, Wyoming?
You do realize, that in the end when it is compiled/interpretted whatever, chances are all your fancywork becomes a bunch of goto statements anyway?
Who determines who are the good guys and bad guys? IMHO, if they're insecure, they're not as good of guys as you might think.
I applaud him for looking into such concerns for all companies, not just those some people might label as "evil."
Just because you're fond of a company or person, doesn't mean you should give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to security.
Think credit card companies. People used to trust them, so they didn't worry about security too much, and figured the credit card companies cared enough about security (since it costs them a lot of money if there is a breach) that they would take care of any problems on their own. Now we know that isn't true. Perhaps if we had been probing them more intensely in the past, such problems could have been fixed at a much earlier stage and before widespread security breaches occurred.
Some things are too important to rely upon the word or reputation of a company regarding. I'd say security and privacy rank right up there.
As a former swimmer myself, I can tell you that a dolphin kick is much faster through the water than a standard kick. This is why a few years ago the rules were changed to allow a dolphin kick underwater off of the start and off of the wall on turns for all except breaststroke.
If you watch the olympics you will see they almost all use a dolphin kick off the start and wall. This isn't because they want to go slower.
The person at Sony said what customers really want is choice. Actually, most customers don't want choice, or at least they don't want to begiven choices that just get in their way.
They want to feel like they made a choice. That way they made the decision. If there is only one manufacturer of a product, they feel like they had no choice but to buy that one product. If there are 5 to choose from, even if they buy the same product, they've still made a "choice" and are happier about buying it.
Think about it, if you're at the grocery store and you want to buy ketchup, you're probably going to buy your favorite brand, but wouldn't you feel a little weird if that was the only brand of ketchup anyone carried?