Just to give context to this - the democrat and republican political parties have both evolved drastically in the last 100 years. The current evolution of the two parties that everyone is familiar with - republicans being (at least in theory) socially and fiscally conservative, anti-regulation, and pro-business, with democrats (again, in theory) being socially and fiscally liberal, pro-regulation, and pro-taxes - has only become the standard quite recently.
Most of the former confederate states were controlled by democrats for over 100 years, but these were "Southern Democrats" who had significantly different politics from their national comrades, especially on social issues. Many of them actually switched to the republican party a couple of decades ago. As an example Alabama Governor Fob James served one term as a democrat, and one years later as a republican. The current senior senator from Alabama, Richard Shelby, is also a former democrat.
He probably realized early on in life that he would never get the chance to sacrifice himself in an epic one-way trip to Mars, and chose to be a family man instead.
He, along with the rest of us, will surely die in a very boring and useless way. We all die after all, and there is nobility in choosing to lay down your life to gain something of value for others. Throughout history such sacrifices have supported our survival and progression as a species.
Interestingly, another article from the site you provided linked to here. I guess the UF athletic program has dumped ("donated" ?) a large amount of money into the university coffers.
That businessofsports.com site is pretty cool. It looks like I'm going to lose several hours of my life browsing there today, thanks!
It's partially the fault of the borrowers, but each individual borrower did not cause the bubble. It was a fault in/with the system.
If you allow people to do dumb/unethical things that benefit them with little or no consequences they will do it. The scenario began (from the bad borrowers perspective) as largely "victimless", since the lenders would be only screwing themselves by allowing people to borrow who shouldn't, until the problem became large enough that it impacted our entire society.
The problem was the system that allowed people to do dumb things and get into these bad situations with no consequences.
Lenders are in the business of lending money. If they lend money to someone who is unable/unwilling to pay them back, the lenders should reap the consequences. The problem with the system was that nobody reaped the consequences for bad or borderline loans, and the entire system crashed.
If a burger-flipper finds out he can "buy" a $500,000 house (even if he knows he can't make the payments and will default in a few months) I honestly can't fault him for going for it. It's not a good financial decision, but for a person with no money, no prospects, no credit finds out they can "own" a half-million dollar house for even a short time the temptation would be massive.
I understand that the Geneva convention relates to POW's. I was just citing an example of psychological harm that is illegal.
This particular case is somewhat complicated (probably fake, in the first place) but the point is that people with certain psychological conditions cannot just "walk away". If my actions (whether physical or not) directly contribute to harming another person then I bear responsibility for that harm.
It's actually a pretty good analogy. If your intent is to cause someone physical harm (or death) by your actions then the difference between a physical action and any other action on your part is trivial.
Psychological torture is illegal under the Geneva convention. Also, if you hire or convince someone to murder another person, then you can also be held legally responsible for the murder, even though you didn't do anything physical to the victim.
If you incidentally cause someone physical harm (or death) by your non-physical actions due to gross negligence then again, you are going to have some legal issues.
You are mostly wrong there (e.g. insanity defenses, diminished responsibility etc.). Also, suicidal depression brought on by (or correlated with) chronic alcoholism is not very comparable to drunk driving. A person has to make several choices in order to drive drunk (including choices while they are sober). Suicidal depression is not a choice. Nobody with a healthy mind will choose to be placed under a compulsion to take their own life.
I would suspect that interviewees from "top" southeastern schools such as Duke, UNC Chapel Hill, Clemson, Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Florida, Texas A&M, Rice etc. would be better in general than graduates of "average" schools in CA.
If this guy was clinically unable to take responsibility, he should either be in a mental hospital, or in the care of guardians who don't allow him access to the Internet.
Should be indeed. If everyone with major depression, alcoholism, and the other important factors that contribute to suicide got help then we would see very, very few suicides.
There are numerous laws dealing with mental and emotional duress so yes, this is an area of law.
Someone who is capable of committing suicide cannot "take care of their own brain". Knowingly harassing someone in such a condition and causing them to carry out the suicide is at best manslaughter due to gross negligence.
Obviously if someone had a gun to their own head, was in clear duress and you encouraged them to pull the trigger you would be going to jail (a good lawyer could perhaps even make a case for premeditated murder-by-suicide if you had motive). The Reddit case is a little more complicated since (due to internet) the defendants would have had difficulty gauging the seriousness of the situation. Due to the murkiness there, a wrongful death civil case would be appropriate.
Yes, it was obvious that you were unaware of the science and technology focus in the area from your original post. You are correct that the presence of 20 Fortune 500 offices is a rather minor point. The link I referenced was more related to real-estate than scientific production.
People would not have defaulted (in anywhere near the same amounts) if they had not gotten mortgages that they can't afford in the first place.
There's a difference between "can't afford" and "can barely afford."
People in the first category obviously shouldn't be granted a mortgage (and mostly weren't even during the housing bubble, I would suspect, though I too have seen the reports of ridiculous mortgages). The people in the second category are the issue. They can technically make the payments, though it's tight, and normally can't get a mortgage because it's too risky for the bank. Something trivial could happen to cause them to not be able to make payments. When the economy tanked the barely-affords started falling like dominoes. Someone loses their job, they have no savings since they're strapped making their mortgage payment, and since the economy is in a pickle it takes months to find a new one. Splat. In retrospect this person probably shouldn't have gotten into a mortgage like that, but should they really be legally prevented from doing so? Just because it's a bad decision does not mean that it's an unethical decision.
I was a little behind the times (born in 82) but I first played ADVENT (and a lot of other games from that era) in ~88 on a Modcomp ZORBA. Modcomp was a minicomputer manufacturer that was experimenting with portable PC's. All the versions of Zorba as far as I know ran CPM. I still have a few in storage that I need to bust out to see if I can get them working again.
You are pretty much spot-on there. I used to poke around and find lowest PPU for commodity goods and then spam the AH with singles at an up-charge. There were other somewhat dubious AH tricks I learned in WoW that I'm interested to try out in the D3 RMAH.
Well, we've only really had legitimate 'medical care' available for the last 100 years or so. There are large areas of the world still without good medical care, but those areas are shrinking rapidly.
In the US (and assumedly other rich nations) practically 100% of the population has access to very good emergency medical care, though poor decisions are still often made. Effective care for some especially rough conditions (HIV etc.) and 'quality of life' improvements are often cost prohibitive for most of the population, but much of these types of treatments/procedures have only been available for the last few decades and availability is improving.
Availability and quality of medical care has been improving drastically for years and continues to do so. Barring apocalypse I do not see a future where only the 1% have access to it.
We get along just fine out hear not banning any kind of head gear or symbolism..
In the US there are places such as banks and some schools where you are not allowed to wear headgear. US schools also often require uniforms or have strict dress codes which could cause 'infringement' of religion based on your view.
There also a lot of state laws banning public wearing of masks in the US. Evidently many of them were implemented due to Klan activity in the early 20th century.
We do not have as much of a backlash from the Muslim community here because we do not really HAVE a Muslim community (less than 1% of our population is Muslim). France has a large and growing Muslim community (7% of total pop. and almost half of all immigrants) so these types of laws are more controversial there.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to give context to this - the democrat and republican political parties have both evolved drastically in the last 100 years. The current evolution of the two parties that everyone is familiar with - republicans being (at least in theory) socially and fiscally conservative, anti-regulation, and pro-business, with democrats (again, in theory) being socially and fiscally liberal, pro-regulation, and pro-taxes - has only become the standard quite recently.
Most of the former confederate states were controlled by democrats for over 100 years, but these were "Southern Democrats" who had significantly different politics from their national comrades, especially on social issues. Many of them actually switched to the republican party a couple of decades ago. As an example Alabama Governor Fob James served one term as a democrat, and one years later as a republican. The current senior senator from Alabama, Richard Shelby, is also a former democrat.
He probably realized early on in life that he would never get the chance to sacrifice himself in an epic one-way trip to Mars, and chose to be a family man instead.
He, along with the rest of us, will surely die in a very boring and useless way. We all die after all, and there is nobility in choosing to lay down your life to gain something of value for others. Throughout history such sacrifices have supported our survival and progression as a species.
This is my understanding of the situation also. IMHO this was probably the best way to go about it.
Does the judge now have to rule on whether API's can be copyrighted?
so if i dont put up curtains that gives you free reign to peer into the windows of my house and make an inventory?
Um, pretty much yes?
Interestingly, another article from the site you provided linked to here. I guess the UF athletic program has dumped ("donated" ?) a large amount of money into the university coffers.
That businessofsports.com site is pretty cool. It looks like I'm going to lose several hours of my life browsing there today, thanks!
It's partially the fault of the borrowers, but each individual borrower did not cause the bubble. It was a fault in/with the system.
If you allow people to do dumb/unethical things that benefit them with little or no consequences they will do it. The scenario began (from the bad borrowers perspective) as largely "victimless", since the lenders would be only screwing themselves by allowing people to borrow who shouldn't, until the problem became large enough that it impacted our entire society.
The problem was the system that allowed people to do dumb things and get into these bad situations with no consequences.
Lenders are in the business of lending money. If they lend money to someone who is unable/unwilling to pay them back, the lenders should reap the consequences. The problem with the system was that nobody reaped the consequences for bad or borderline loans, and the entire system crashed.
If a burger-flipper finds out he can "buy" a $500,000 house (even if he knows he can't make the payments and will default in a few months) I honestly can't fault him for going for it. It's not a good financial decision, but for a person with no money, no prospects, no credit finds out they can "own" a half-million dollar house for even a short time the temptation would be massive.
I understand that the Geneva convention relates to POW's. I was just citing an example of psychological harm that is illegal.
This particular case is somewhat complicated (probably fake, in the first place) but the point is that people with certain psychological conditions cannot just "walk away". If my actions (whether physical or not) directly contribute to harming another person then I bear responsibility for that harm.
It's actually a pretty good analogy. If your intent is to cause someone physical harm (or death) by your actions then the difference between a physical action and any other action on your part is trivial.
Psychological torture is illegal under the Geneva convention. Also, if you hire or convince someone to murder another person, then you can also be held legally responsible for the murder, even though you didn't do anything physical to the victim.
If you incidentally cause someone physical harm (or death) by your non-physical actions due to gross negligence then again, you are going to have some legal issues.
Sounds like you need an increase in sample size. :)
You are mostly wrong there (e.g. insanity defenses, diminished responsibility etc.). Also, suicidal depression brought on by (or correlated with) chronic alcoholism is not very comparable to drunk driving. A person has to make several choices in order to drive drunk (including choices while they are sober). Suicidal depression is not a choice. Nobody with a healthy mind will choose to be placed under a compulsion to take their own life.
I would suspect that interviewees from "top" southeastern schools such as Duke, UNC Chapel Hill, Clemson, Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Florida, Texas A&M, Rice etc. would be better in general than graduates of "average" schools in CA.
If this guy was clinically unable to take responsibility, he should either be in a mental hospital, or in the care of guardians who don't allow him access to the Internet.
Should be indeed. If everyone with major depression, alcoholism, and the other important factors that contribute to suicide got help then we would see very, very few suicides.
http://www.aafp.org/afp/1999/0315/p1500.html
http://psycontent.metapress.com/content/ek8w74718q375804/br
It's an analogy....
There are numerous laws dealing with mental and emotional duress so yes, this is an area of law.
Someone who is capable of committing suicide cannot "take care of their own brain". Knowingly harassing someone in such a condition and causing them to carry out the suicide is at best manslaughter due to gross negligence.
Obviously if someone had a gun to their own head, was in clear duress and you encouraged them to pull the trigger you would be going to jail (a good lawyer could perhaps even make a case for premeditated murder-by-suicide if you had motive). The Reddit case is a little more complicated since (due to internet) the defendants would have had difficulty gauging the seriousness of the situation. Due to the murkiness there, a wrongful death civil case would be appropriate.
Yes, it was obvious that you were unaware of the science and technology focus in the area from your original post. You are correct that the presence of 20 Fortune 500 offices is a rather minor point. The link I referenced was more related to real-estate than scientific production.
My point was that there are many people from the area who would not be depressing to interview. One out of every 6 jobs in Huntsville is in science or engineering.
Atlanta, GA is also considered a prominent science and technology hub.
The scientists of Huntsville, AL would probably like a word with you. The city is located about 10 miles from the TN border.
"CRP [Cummings Research Park] is second only to Research Triangle Park in size (3,843 acres, or 1,555 hectares) and seniority (45 years) among U.S. research parks. It boasts more than 220 companies active in more than 40 separate technology fields, including 20 FORTUNE 500 firms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cummings_Research_Park
Also in Huntsville, AL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Spaceflight_Center
People would not have defaulted (in anywhere near the same amounts) if they had not gotten mortgages that they can't afford in the first place.
There's a difference between "can't afford" and "can barely afford."
People in the first category obviously shouldn't be granted a mortgage (and mostly weren't even during the housing bubble, I would suspect, though I too have seen the reports of ridiculous mortgages). The people in the second category are the issue. They can technically make the payments, though it's tight, and normally can't get a mortgage because it's too risky for the bank. Something trivial could happen to cause them to not be able to make payments. When the economy tanked the barely-affords started falling like dominoes. Someone loses their job, they have no savings since they're strapped making their mortgage payment, and since the economy is in a pickle it takes months to find a new one. Splat. In retrospect this person probably shouldn't have gotten into a mortgage like that, but should they really be legally prevented from doing so? Just because it's a bad decision does not mean that it's an unethical decision.
I was a little behind the times (born in 82) but I first played ADVENT (and a lot of other games from that era) in ~88 on a Modcomp ZORBA. Modcomp was a minicomputer manufacturer that was experimenting with portable PC's. All the versions of Zorba as far as I know ran CPM. I still have a few in storage that I need to bust out to see if I can get them working again.
I found a link to some kind of ZORBA fan page:
http://www.zorba.z80.de/
And here are some photos:
http://www.zorba.z80.de/photos.htm
I guess that makes more sense than an epic entertainment-center-equipped deer stand, but definitely not as exciting. :(
Just FYI...Jan Brewer is a Republican, and both houses of the Arizona State Legislature (who passed the bill) are held by a Republican majority.
This is an issue of totalitarianism - which is not one of the points on which the two ruling parties in the US differ.
You are pretty much spot-on there. I used to poke around and find lowest PPU for commodity goods and then spam the AH with singles at an up-charge. There were other somewhat dubious AH tricks I learned in WoW that I'm interested to try out in the D3 RMAH.
But it does lag out and drop out a lo
There were a lot of players in World of Warcraft who had similar issues. Unfortunately WoW also did not have an offline single-player mode.
Wow! It seems Blizzard did not anticipate this backlash from the plays-in-a-deer-stand-only segment of the player base!
Well, we've only really had legitimate 'medical care' available for the last 100 years or so. There are large areas of the world still without good medical care, but those areas are shrinking rapidly.
In the US (and assumedly other rich nations) practically 100% of the population has access to very good emergency medical care, though poor decisions are still often made. Effective care for some especially rough conditions (HIV etc.) and 'quality of life' improvements are often cost prohibitive for most of the population, but much of these types of treatments/procedures have only been available for the last few decades and availability is improving.
Availability and quality of medical care has been improving drastically for years and continues to do so. Barring apocalypse I do not see a future where only the 1% have access to it.
We get along just fine out hear not banning any kind of head gear or symbolism..
In the US there are places such as banks and some schools where you are not allowed to wear headgear. US schools also often require uniforms or have strict dress codes which could cause 'infringement' of religion based on your view.
There also a lot of state laws banning public wearing of masks in the US. Evidently many of them were implemented due to Klan activity in the early 20th century.
Incomplete list of such laws: http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html?
We do not have as much of a backlash from the Muslim community here because we do not really HAVE a Muslim community (less than 1% of our population is Muslim). France has a large and growing Muslim community (7% of total pop. and almost half of all immigrants) so these types of laws are more controversial there.