I think it's important to note the pricing. Being worth the cost of entry is important towards being an impulse buy. Of course, it also makes it much harder to end up with profit afterward (a lot of that $1 goes to Microsoft), but that balance is very important.
Of course, we will pay $60 for 8-10 hours worth of fun for other games, why wouldn't we pay $2 for 5 hours worth of indie-game fun?
And it's further complicated that beyond just A->B or B->A, you have additional cases such as C->(A+B), or (A+B)->D where your study inadvertanty selects for D.
Unless the US became a legitimate war zone, of course. But then, we'd have problems bigger than some ACLU lawsuit could solve...
I do agree with GP, though. If someone is an enemy combatant in a foreign war, this is no longer a law enforcement issue where you have a right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. You are now covered only by the Geneva Convention protections.
Then explain to me the rationing that occurs in every nation with socialized health care? There never seems to be enough of other people's money (aka - taxes) to pay enough.
As soon as you explain to me the rationing that occurs with every health insurance company. There never seems to be enough of other people's money (aka - premiums) to pay enough.
Let's face it, we're already paying in to a system that rations care. The difference is that this care is selective, so as soon as one person costs 'too much' (often through no fault of their own, except unfortunate genetics) the plan drops them and puts that money toward an executive bonus. That's supposed to be the risk the insurance provider takes when they offer care, so they shouldn't be allowed to drop them.
The system isn't going to get any worse, why shouldn't we extend the same level of care to everyone?
If the 40% of the particles are concentrated on the tumor (let's assume it is 2% of the body by volume), the tumors will actually have a concentration of particles 30x that of the healthy tissue (0.4/0.02 in the tumor, 0.6/0.98 everywhere else). Set the heating level to be 1/10th lethal level for the cells in the non-cancerous areas would still provide 3x the lethal heat to the tumor. And the laser light source will only be shined on the area with the tumor anyway, so there's little concern of damage to the rest of the body.
Even at the current levels, we're still talking 3x concentration in the tumor compared to the rest of the body, even though it only absorbs 6% of the gold (again, assuming the tumor is 2% of the body). Set the laser for lethal heat on the tumor and only aim the laser at the tumor, and you get only 1/3rd lethal levels of heat in surrounding tissue (maybe).
Sounds like a win to me, although this general technique isn't new. They've been trying this with other types of gold nanoparticle for quite a while. The trick (which they still haven't figured out) is getting the gold to be targeted. Of course, as soon as you can make targeted proteins, all sorts of cancer cures will emerge as soon as you can attach a payload (any payload, basically) to the protein.
Bullshit! Since when has an infant been able to give their consent for this "elective out-patient procedure"? The very definition of "elective" is that there's a choice involved, which is clearly not the case for male or female genital cutting.
And this is where I feel your point is valid. It's not elective for the child, and that's a reasonable thing to be upset about.
And again, as per the medical/cultural debate, male circumcision is a medical procedure performed for cultural reasons. Female genital mutilation is a cultural procedure performed for cultural reasons. This is not to say that male circumcision is justified in any or all cases, only that it is not 'mutilation' any more than it would be for parents to insist on the removal of their child's tonsils.
I'm sure if you were to ask the OP, he'd express the same anger toward *anyone* who promoted the forced excision of healthy tissue from individuals unable to give their consent.
Assuming he does, I have no issue. Assuming he only cares because it's tied to a religious belief, then I have an issue.
That's not an argument against defining it as mutilation. That's simply an argument for normalizing it. Or are you saying that any practice accepted by a culture, no matter how abhorrent, can't be described as "mutilation"?
I wasn't talking about culture at all there, I was talking about medical practice. The medical community (or at least, a good portion of it) finds the risk minor enough to classify circumcision as an elective procedure. More importantly, there are benefits gained from the procedure, regardless of how small or unnecessary.
I would agree that in most cases, circumcision should only be performed when medically necessary or for a consenting adult. However, I still can not rightly classify it as 'mutilation' because it is an elective out-patient procedure.
It is in some African cultures. Why do you think there was such an uproar over the issue?
Again, in this case it is a routine cultural practice, not a routine medical practice. See above.
According to your argument, African cultures that practice female genital mutilation are perfectly right to do so, as it's "tradition". Of course, that view is utterly absurd.
That's not his argument at all. Firstly, it's that the anger seems to be directed purely at Jews who circumcise infants, while many others circumcise infants without a pressing medical necessity as well. Either you are angry at everybody or nobody, you can't just pick one group if everything else remains equal.
Secondly, the argument against 'mutilation' is that this is a relatively common and routine procedure. Labial 'circumcision' is not (to my knowledge) performed as a routine procedure. When there is surgery to correct a labial issue, the type of cut is significantly different from that of ritual mutilation, whereas a circumcision for penile infection, a Jewish bris, or simply so they 'fit in' the procedure is exactly the same.
I disagree with your interpretation of his answer. It seems to me his explanation is against the thought 'if we were supposed to be circumcised, wouldn't God have us born without foreskin?' I don't see the implication that the foreskin is a mistake, only that God's creation does not imply that the creation is not intended to be changed. Tell me if you think I'm totally off-base here.
More importantly, it's pretty obvious that we're talking cultural Judaism rather than religious Judaism (even most of the Jews in Israel don't believe in God). Otherwise, the question wouldn't have needed to be asked, and the answer would have just been God told us to. So the question becomes: do they circumcise for religious or cultural reasons, and are either acceptable. Put another way, this isn't necessarily a question about religious 'mutilation', but of cultural.
But famed jewish philosopher Maimonides had an even more disturbing view. He acknowledged that the foreskin was useful, that it had sexual functions, that removing it hampered one's sexual capacity. And circumcision should be done because of that. I kid you not, that's a guy who thought an inferior sex life was a moral goal. How demented does one have to be, to take that shit seriously?
Again, while I may be totally off base about this, it still seems to me to be a reflection of the change of mainstream Judaism toward acting cultural norms rather than religious belief. If we were speaking merely of belief, the Genesis quote would be enough. However, if you have a Jewish man who does not believe in God, you need another reason.
Long way of saying: if the person promoting circumcision is doing so for ulterior motives, I agree that is wicked. I have a hard time, though, condemning someone for circumcising a child in good faith and for the perceived good of their child.
Hair isn't alive. Foreskins aren't dead or useless.
Correct, there's a huge difference between the two. My only dispute is with the phrasing.
Saying 'end of the penis' implies (in my mind, at least) the head of the penis, rather than the foreskin. It seems like a trick to win the argument on semantics rather than merits (which there are plenty of).
Sorry, but I have trouble calling foreskin the 'end of your dick' in this case. Similarly to how I wouldn't say getting a haircut is "chopping off the top of your head".
I also wouldn't call foreskin a completely useless piece of flesh (I understand why most non-Jews prefer not to circumcise at birth), but it's also not strictly necessary (I understand why a Jew would continue to circumcise at birth).
As I understand it... man is created in God's image, therefore is as close to perfection as you can already make it
Cute. Except they make an exception for that one bit that's your most sensitive erogenous zone. And rabbis dare call that bit an imperfection. And even deny the pain that the procedure to "fix it" leads to pain and negative side effects, or even pretend these are a good thing.
Circumcision is a sign of recognition of God's authority, not an attempt to 'fix' a mistake in the body. Where did you get that idea?
And even if there are 2 matching accounts, a little bit of guesswork from information known about the person can remove the ambiguity. Look for foreign-language films if they are an immigrant, films or shows that appeal to their occupation (Dilbert cartoon or the IT Crowd for someone here, The Real World or Jersey Shore for someone at Abercrombie) or hobbies (musician, car person, etc), and boom, suddenly you know that the applicant watches softcore porn/disney shows/GLBT interest film.
I see your point on parts of these. But a lot of this is simply being an apologist. I think this goes to show that truly any side can be taken with adequate interpretation which is one of the dangers of the bible.
I disagree. I am simply looking for consistency in what I read, as well as the 'big picture'. I agree that it's easy to interpret the Bible many ways, but my goal is to find the interpretation that matches with everything else. Particularly in the verses you found, I believe the context is important, as with any other text, for proper understanding.
Nor am I concerned with being 'right'. In fact, there are many times where a closer reading of the Bible has changed my beliefs. I would much prefer that I be proved wrong by a thoughtful examination of the Bible, than to prove my opinion right with a narrow interpretation. It's a constant process, and one that I enjoy (and it's the reason I seek out discussion of it).
I'd like to add that perhaps struggling with the meaning of some passages isn't a test of your faith, it is just wrong. God being all knowing and all powerful certainly should have made writing a clear and understandable book a priority why would he have made it a test when there are already so many in life? Do you think it possible that you are not gaining understand but simply convincing yourself of the same. Like a mental hypochondriac?
Well, I think a lot of the times that I struggle, it's because I don't have the background to understand the passage. The Bible has to cover a lot of ground. It covers very simple concepts to create a framework of the faith (such as Romans or 1 Corinthians), more complex concepts to tie them together (Hebrews), and very deep ideas and prophesy (Revelation). One can't simply jump right into Revelation and expect it to make sense without understanding the theological underpinnings of the topics, the historical setting in which the book was written, and the poetic structure and style of the original text. I struggle with Revelation the same way that I stuggled to understand the Illiad or The Odyssey because I knew so little of Greek culture and mythology.
I feel that the Bible does take the time to make the book clear and understandable, when it is appropriate. At the same time, it doesn't shy away from making deep connections not intended for the casual reader. Lacking either of these components would detract from the book as a whole, making it either wholly impenetrable or too shallow to be worth reading.
While I am able to scratch the surface of some of the deeper stuff, I doubt I will ever reach the understanding that other scholars have. I also think that's alright as long as I keep an open mind, and continue to challenge what I read to find the truth.
That said, I think you are FAR better off than the majority of religious people that don't read the bible and use it as the basis of their beliefs. So I commend you on that. I may yet re-read the bible with a study guide as you suggest. It would be difficult however for me to take it with a truly open mind having seen many ills caused by the church.
Likewise, I appreciate that you're willing to challenge and study your own beliefs and assumptions. That's not common at all today, particularly with people such as the Westboro Baptist Church and Richard Dawkins gaining so much ground, and giving such a bad impression to those they claim to represent.
Anyway, feel free to send me an e-mail if you want to continue discussing stuff. I'm always up for actual intelligent debate with someone else who's reasonable.
No, because if we don't burn the methane, that power will need to come from somewhere else. That somewhere else is probably coal, oil, or NG.
So, if we don't burn it, we get both sets of greenhouse gasses. If we do burn it, the need for other fossil fuels is reduced, resulting in the same ammount of CO2 from combustion AND less unburned methane. That means we would actually be reducing the quantity and speed of greenhouse gas emissions by burning this CH4.
But most importantly, it allows useful work to be done, meaning some other fossil fuel doesn't need to be burned. Sure, we're still releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere, but it was headed there anyway and we're able to offset another hydrocarbon fuel.
I don't quite get the confusion between the WII controller and the gun. The pictures in the article make it obvious that he had bought a very realistic gun controller, but if the kid had been playing the game, he'd know to point it towards the TV, not at himself.
If the kid played with the controller as a toy gun beyond the game (spinning on the finger, holstering, etc) or was simply examining it, I can see this being quite possible.
What's more of a shame to me is that they not only allowed their child play a shooter at the age of 3 with a replica firearm, they did it in a home with actual firearms and apparently did not teach the child enough firearm safety. They essentially taught "guns are fun to play with" without differentiating between which is a toy and which is dangerous (and 3-yo is too young to teach that one black 'gun' is different from another black gun, arguably). That's just a recipe for disaster.
That's a possible downside of their decision, not of the ruling itself. It's good for musicians to rule that their contracts covering physical record sales also give them the same rights for digital sales.
The Decemberists. Not classic rock by a long shot (they're more like modern day baroque), but just about all of their albums tell an arching story. They are the definition of concept albums.
While AT&T are bad verizon is just as bad if not worse. Ihave watched verizons 3G network slow to a crawl.
You trade speed for coverage between AT&T and Verizon. Just like there are tradeoffs between an iPhone or an Android phone or Blackberry. Decide based on the features you want which is best for you personally.
To date the spyware and hacks that have been succesful only target jail broken phones. Why because people are stupid and install things wrong.
But this isn't an anti-hacking application, so that doesn't apply. This is an anti-theft applications. You know, in case your phone is stolen.
So why not approve it? I can think of two reasons:
1) Does things beyond the API or agreement allows, particularly with encryption.
2) Apple provides an anti-theft service, which this application would compete with.
Involuntary Manslaughter is a good place to start. Particularly since he was in violation of TN law (a misdemeanor offense) by allowing the child to handle the firearm:
Unlawfully providing or permitting a juvenile to possess a handgun in violation of subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor 39-17-1320
The child was not participating in a firearm sport or training, nor were they justified in using deadly force for home defense. The only defense would be to claim the child was not 'knowingly' in posession of the firearm, but that's why you press charges and let the courts decide.
Any punishment now would just be for the sake of making these people pay.
Right, that's why it's called a punishment.
And why do they need to be punished? Because they caused the death of another person. It doesn't matter that they liked or cared for that person, nor that they feel bad that it happened.
If they broke the law, they should be punished according to the law. Otherwise, they (and anyone else) would be allowed to violate the law without penalty simply by claiming the consequences were unintended. Punishment would be harsh, but fair.
A 1 and 3 year old child can not responsibly handle a loaded firearm. Period. They should be taught not to handle them by that age, and how to handle them safely when they are a bit older, but in no way should they be allowed to touch a ready to fire weapon in the home.
And, particularly in this case, the child played games with a toy 'gun' designed to look accurate. I don't think you would either teach children to be so casual with guns, nor would you go out of your way to make a toy gun used by a child look authentic.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's important to note the pricing. Being worth the cost of entry is important towards being an impulse buy. Of course, it also makes it much harder to end up with profit afterward (a lot of that $1 goes to Microsoft), but that balance is very important.
Of course, we will pay $60 for 8-10 hours worth of fun for other games, why wouldn't we pay $2 for 5 hours worth of indie-game fun?
And it's further complicated that beyond just A->B or B->A, you have additional cases such as C->(A+B), or (A+B)->D where your study inadvertanty selects for D.
Unless the US became a legitimate war zone, of course. But then, we'd have problems bigger than some ACLU lawsuit could solve...
I do agree with GP, though. If someone is an enemy combatant in a foreign war, this is no longer a law enforcement issue where you have a right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. You are now covered only by the Geneva Convention protections.
"Waiter, there's a blastema in my soup."
Then explain to me the rationing that occurs in every nation with socialized health care? There never seems to be enough of other people's money (aka - taxes) to pay enough.
As soon as you explain to me the rationing that occurs with every health insurance company. There never seems to be enough of other people's money (aka - premiums) to pay enough.
Let's face it, we're already paying in to a system that rations care. The difference is that this care is selective, so as soon as one person costs 'too much' (often through no fault of their own, except unfortunate genetics) the plan drops them and puts that money toward an executive bonus. That's supposed to be the risk the insurance provider takes when they offer care, so they shouldn't be allowed to drop them.
The system isn't going to get any worse, why shouldn't we extend the same level of care to everyone?
If the 40% of the particles are concentrated on the tumor (let's assume it is 2% of the body by volume), the tumors will actually have a concentration of particles 30x that of the healthy tissue (0.4/0.02 in the tumor, 0.6/0.98 everywhere else). Set the heating level to be 1/10th lethal level for the cells in the non-cancerous areas would still provide 3x the lethal heat to the tumor. And the laser light source will only be shined on the area with the tumor anyway, so there's little concern of damage to the rest of the body.
Even at the current levels, we're still talking 3x concentration in the tumor compared to the rest of the body, even though it only absorbs 6% of the gold (again, assuming the tumor is 2% of the body). Set the laser for lethal heat on the tumor and only aim the laser at the tumor, and you get only 1/3rd lethal levels of heat in surrounding tissue (maybe).
Sounds like a win to me, although this general technique isn't new. They've been trying this with other types of gold nanoparticle for quite a while. The trick (which they still haven't figured out) is getting the gold to be targeted. Of course, as soon as you can make targeted proteins, all sorts of cancer cures will emerge as soon as you can attach a payload (any payload, basically) to the protein.
Bullshit! Since when has an infant been able to give their consent for this "elective out-patient procedure"? The very definition of "elective" is that there's a choice involved, which is clearly not the case for male or female genital cutting.
And this is where I feel your point is valid. It's not elective for the child, and that's a reasonable thing to be upset about.
And again, as per the medical/cultural debate, male circumcision is a medical procedure performed for cultural reasons. Female genital mutilation is a cultural procedure performed for cultural reasons. This is not to say that male circumcision is justified in any or all cases, only that it is not 'mutilation' any more than it would be for parents to insist on the removal of their child's tonsils.
I'm sure if you were to ask the OP, he'd express the same anger toward *anyone* who promoted the forced excision of healthy tissue from individuals unable to give their consent.
Assuming he does, I have no issue. Assuming he only cares because it's tied to a religious belief, then I have an issue.
That's not an argument against defining it as mutilation. That's simply an argument for normalizing it. Or are you saying that any practice accepted by a culture, no matter how abhorrent, can't be described as "mutilation"?
I wasn't talking about culture at all there, I was talking about medical practice. The medical community (or at least, a good portion of it) finds the risk minor enough to classify circumcision as an elective procedure. More importantly, there are benefits gained from the procedure, regardless of how small or unnecessary.
I would agree that in most cases, circumcision should only be performed when medically necessary or for a consenting adult. However, I still can not rightly classify it as 'mutilation' because it is an elective out-patient procedure.
It is in some African cultures. Why do you think there was such an uproar over the issue?
Again, in this case it is a routine cultural practice, not a routine medical practice. See above.
According to your argument, African cultures that practice female genital mutilation are perfectly right to do so, as it's "tradition". Of course, that view is utterly absurd.
That's not his argument at all. Firstly, it's that the anger seems to be directed purely at Jews who circumcise infants, while many others circumcise infants without a pressing medical necessity as well. Either you are angry at everybody or nobody, you can't just pick one group if everything else remains equal.
Secondly, the argument against 'mutilation' is that this is a relatively common and routine procedure. Labial 'circumcision' is not (to my knowledge) performed as a routine procedure. When there is surgery to correct a labial issue, the type of cut is significantly different from that of ritual mutilation, whereas a circumcision for penile infection, a Jewish bris, or simply so they 'fit in' the procedure is exactly the same.
Just one example of said belief here.
I disagree with your interpretation of his answer. It seems to me his explanation is against the thought 'if we were supposed to be circumcised, wouldn't God have us born without foreskin?' I don't see the implication that the foreskin is a mistake, only that God's creation does not imply that the creation is not intended to be changed. Tell me if you think I'm totally off-base here.
More importantly, it's pretty obvious that we're talking cultural Judaism rather than religious Judaism (even most of the Jews in Israel don't believe in God). Otherwise, the question wouldn't have needed to be asked, and the answer would have just been God told us to. So the question becomes: do they circumcise for religious or cultural reasons, and are either acceptable. Put another way, this isn't necessarily a question about religious 'mutilation', but of cultural.
But famed jewish philosopher Maimonides had an even more disturbing view. He acknowledged that the foreskin was useful, that it had sexual functions, that removing it hampered one's sexual capacity. And circumcision should be done because of that. I kid you not, that's a guy who thought an inferior sex life was a moral goal. How demented does one have to be, to take that shit seriously?
Again, while I may be totally off base about this, it still seems to me to be a reflection of the change of mainstream Judaism toward acting cultural norms rather than religious belief. If we were speaking merely of belief, the Genesis quote would be enough. However, if you have a Jewish man who does not believe in God, you need another reason.
Long way of saying: if the person promoting circumcision is doing so for ulterior motives, I agree that is wicked. I have a hard time, though, condemning someone for circumcising a child in good faith and for the perceived good of their child.
Hair isn't alive. Foreskins aren't dead or useless.
Correct, there's a huge difference between the two. My only dispute is with the phrasing.
Saying 'end of the penis' implies (in my mind, at least) the head of the penis, rather than the foreskin. It seems like a trick to win the argument on semantics rather than merits (which there are plenty of).
Sorry, but I have trouble calling foreskin the 'end of your dick' in this case. Similarly to how I wouldn't say getting a haircut is "chopping off the top of your head".
I also wouldn't call foreskin a completely useless piece of flesh (I understand why most non-Jews prefer not to circumcise at birth), but it's also not strictly necessary (I understand why a Jew would continue to circumcise at birth).
As I understand it ... man is created in God's image, therefore is as close to perfection as you can already make it
Cute. Except they make an exception for that one bit that's your most sensitive erogenous zone. And rabbis dare call that bit an imperfection. And even deny the pain that the procedure to "fix it" leads to pain and negative side effects, or even pretend these are a good thing.
Circumcision is a sign of recognition of God's authority, not an attempt to 'fix' a mistake in the body. Where did you get that idea?
There's a reason they call it a guily pleasure.
And even if there are 2 matching accounts, a little bit of guesswork from information known about the person can remove the ambiguity. Look for foreign-language films if they are an immigrant, films or shows that appeal to their occupation (Dilbert cartoon or the IT Crowd for someone here, The Real World or Jersey Shore for someone at Abercrombie) or hobbies (musician, car person, etc), and boom, suddenly you know that the applicant watches softcore porn/disney shows/GLBT interest film.
I see your point on parts of these. But a lot of this is simply being an apologist. I think this goes to show that truly any side can be taken with adequate interpretation which is one of the dangers of the bible.
I disagree. I am simply looking for consistency in what I read, as well as the 'big picture'. I agree that it's easy to interpret the Bible many ways, but my goal is to find the interpretation that matches with everything else. Particularly in the verses you found, I believe the context is important, as with any other text, for proper understanding.
Nor am I concerned with being 'right'. In fact, there are many times where a closer reading of the Bible has changed my beliefs. I would much prefer that I be proved wrong by a thoughtful examination of the Bible, than to prove my opinion right with a narrow interpretation. It's a constant process, and one that I enjoy (and it's the reason I seek out discussion of it).
I'd like to add that perhaps struggling with the meaning of some passages isn't a test of your faith, it is just wrong. God being all knowing and all powerful certainly should have made writing a clear and understandable book a priority why would he have made it a test when there are already so many in life? Do you think it possible that you are not gaining understand but simply convincing yourself of the same. Like a mental hypochondriac?
Well, I think a lot of the times that I struggle, it's because I don't have the background to understand the passage. The Bible has to cover a lot of ground. It covers very simple concepts to create a framework of the faith (such as Romans or 1 Corinthians), more complex concepts to tie them together (Hebrews), and very deep ideas and prophesy (Revelation). One can't simply jump right into Revelation and expect it to make sense without understanding the theological underpinnings of the topics, the historical setting in which the book was written, and the poetic structure and style of the original text. I struggle with Revelation the same way that I stuggled to understand the Illiad or The Odyssey because I knew so little of Greek culture and mythology.
I feel that the Bible does take the time to make the book clear and understandable, when it is appropriate. At the same time, it doesn't shy away from making deep connections not intended for the casual reader. Lacking either of these components would detract from the book as a whole, making it either wholly impenetrable or too shallow to be worth reading.
While I am able to scratch the surface of some of the deeper stuff, I doubt I will ever reach the understanding that other scholars have. I also think that's alright as long as I keep an open mind, and continue to challenge what I read to find the truth.
That said, I think you are FAR better off than the majority of religious people that don't read the bible and use it as the basis of their beliefs. So I commend you on that. I may yet re-read the bible with a study guide as you suggest. It would be difficult however for me to take it with a truly open mind having seen many ills caused by the church.
Likewise, I appreciate that you're willing to challenge and study your own beliefs and assumptions. That's not common at all today, particularly with people such as the Westboro Baptist Church and Richard Dawkins gaining so much ground, and giving such a bad impression to those they claim to represent.
Anyway, feel free to send me an e-mail if you want to continue discussing stuff. I'm always up for actual intelligent debate with someone else who's reasonable.
No, because if we don't burn the methane, that power will need to come from somewhere else. That somewhere else is probably coal, oil, or NG.
So, if we don't burn it, we get both sets of greenhouse gasses. If we do burn it, the need for other fossil fuels is reduced, resulting in the same ammount of CO2 from combustion AND less unburned methane. That means we would actually be reducing the quantity and speed of greenhouse gas emissions by burning this CH4.
But most importantly, it allows useful work to be done, meaning some other fossil fuel doesn't need to be burned. Sure, we're still releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere, but it was headed there anyway and we're able to offset another hydrocarbon fuel.
I don't quite get the confusion between the WII controller and the gun. The pictures in the article make it obvious that he had bought a very realistic gun controller, but if the kid had been playing the game, he'd know to point it towards the TV, not at himself.
If the kid played with the controller as a toy gun beyond the game (spinning on the finger, holstering, etc) or was simply examining it, I can see this being quite possible.
What's more of a shame to me is that they not only allowed their child play a shooter at the age of 3 with a replica firearm, they did it in a home with actual firearms and apparently did not teach the child enough firearm safety. They essentially taught "guns are fun to play with" without differentiating between which is a toy and which is dangerous (and 3-yo is too young to teach that one black 'gun' is different from another black gun, arguably). That's just a recipe for disaster.
That's a possible downside of their decision, not of the ruling itself. It's good for musicians to rule that their contracts covering physical record sales also give them the same rights for digital sales.
The Decemberists. Not classic rock by a long shot (they're more like modern day baroque), but just about all of their albums tell an arching story. They are the definition of concept albums.
While AT&T are bad verizon is just as bad if not worse. Ihave watched verizons 3G network slow to a crawl.
You trade speed for coverage between AT&T and Verizon. Just like there are tradeoffs between an iPhone or an Android phone or Blackberry. Decide based on the features you want which is best for you personally.
To date the spyware and hacks that have been succesful only target jail broken phones. Why because people are stupid and install things wrong.
But this isn't an anti-hacking application, so that doesn't apply. This is an anti-theft applications. You know, in case your phone is stolen.
So why not approve it? I can think of two reasons:
1) Does things beyond the API or agreement allows, particularly with encryption.
2) Apple provides an anti-theft service, which this application would compete with.
Cite the law broken you want him charged under?
Involuntary Manslaughter is a good place to start. Particularly since he was in violation of TN law (a misdemeanor offense) by allowing the child to handle the firearm:
Unlawfully providing or permitting a juvenile to possess a handgun in violation of subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor 39-17-1320
The child was not participating in a firearm sport or training, nor were they justified in using deadly force for home defense. The only defense would be to claim the child was not 'knowingly' in posession of the firearm, but that's why you press charges and let the courts decide.
Any punishment now would just be for the sake of making these people pay.
Right, that's why it's called a punishment.
And why do they need to be punished? Because they caused the death of another person. It doesn't matter that they liked or cared for that person, nor that they feel bad that it happened.
If they broke the law, they should be punished according to the law. Otherwise, they (and anyone else) would be allowed to violate the law without penalty simply by claiming the consequences were unintended. Punishment would be harsh, but fair.
A 1 and 3 year old child can not responsibly handle a loaded firearm. Period. They should be taught not to handle them by that age, and how to handle them safely when they are a bit older, but in no way should they be allowed to touch a ready to fire weapon in the home.
And, particularly in this case, the child played games with a toy 'gun' designed to look accurate. I don't think you would either teach children to be so casual with guns, nor would you go out of your way to make a toy gun used by a child look authentic.