In British law we have the slightly perverse sight of government instutition being charged in their own right - without the need to identify an individual. The outcome is fines paid by one part of government to another, but it does focus the leadership to get it right (my own police force has at least one conviction for health and safety violations arising from the death of police office).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
records that eight states still have a religion test on the statute books. It's been disabled now, but clearly evidences that the states had no compunction about imposing religious test for the first 150 years of the Federal constitution.
It's clear that any policy of the states was not prevented by the Federal constitution as originally enacted. Coincidentally the Washington Post has an article about the continuing requirement to believe in God in 7 state's laws http://www.washingtonpost.com/... Note that these are CURRENT laws - though effectively disabled by the 1960s decision of SCOTUS referred to in the article. But it is clear that there was no compunction about religious testsfor at least the first 170 years of the constitution!
The point I am making is that that legal status persisted - in some cases for 50 years after the formation of the USA. In that context the first amendment clearly was not designed for the purpose to which it has become used - to exclude religion from state institutions such as schools etc.
Clearly indicates that a Muslim is not bound by an oath to an 'idolater'. This provides plenty of space to justify lying in court, let alone in day to day discourse...
Almost all the "evidence" for evolution is post-facto interpretation of data to conform to the model. The usual evidence for evolution that is trotted out doesn't actually demonstrate EVOLUTION; it tends to demonstrate natural selection as a mechanism for explaining the prevalence of certain variations in species over others. There is no observation of speciation in, for example, viruses or bacteria where generations are extremely short.
Evolution is a powerful story. It provides a justification for being an atheist - so is not adopted neutrally, but part of a wider ideological package.
That Jefferson was campaigning for a wall of separation doesn't detract from the fact that most of the states had established churches. THEREFORE to interpret the FEDERAL constitution as imposing a wall of separation on the STATES makes no sense, because the states showed no particular inclination to disestablish as a result of indepence, despite your ideological commitment to doing so... Of course they did within a couple of generations, but because the wanted to, not because they were mandated by the federal constitution.
The traditional understanding of the faith is that it is a military organisation, committed to the conquest of the world to establish the kingdom of Allah by force. Many Muslims have abandoned this belief - but there is an important element in Islam which allows a Muslim to lie if it will advance the cause of Islam. Therefore it is impossible to trust what Muslims say about their beliefs - because they are free to lie. In this context being a muslim could be argued to be 'probable cause' for surveillance. Harsh but true. http://www.thereligionofpeace.... offers Quaranic reference that enable this behaviour.
Reading the bible provides a clear contrast between Judeo-Christian ethics and Islam - most elegantly demonstrated in Islam's rejection of the ban on more than 40 lashes, and it's destruction of God's creation when a person's hand is chopped off for theft. By contrast the Hebrew bible offers only execution or 6 years slavery for offenders; they are required to pay back three times what they stole, and if they can't are sold into slavery.
The detail which most Americans are unaware of is that at the time of the Revolution most of the states had established churches, mostly Anglican but also Congregationalist. The amendment in the constitution was to protect those state churches from the federal government, NOT to create a barrier between church and state.
The big issue is the realisation for the liberal establishment that not all creationists are scientifically illiterate, the belief which they have tended to cling to whenever a creationist asks them a hard question about evolution and they can't answer. The reality is that SOME of 'creation science' is asking legitimate questions which evolutionists find hard work to explain (e.g. the irreducible complexity of some biological systems that requires a BIG leap of faith to believe emerged spontaneously, some rock formations with fossiled trees extending through far too many layers). People who ask these hard questions tend to get disdained rather than engaged with; this is bad science.
There WILL be legislation proposed very soon for a similar restriction on US companies. That it is stupid, irrational and anti-privacy won;t stop some ignorant legislators from suggesting it. So in that sense alone it does affect the US...
There will be a jury - though one may be sceptical about how unprejudiced they will be - and the judge will be responsible for ensuring real fair play. The issue is, of course, about trust of these institutions given there is no chance for the gawping public to follow the details of the case. Given the inability of the public to accept jury verdicts when the they are 'sure' that the opposite answer is the right one, one has to doubt that the gawping public offers a great deal.
I admit I'm thinking out loud here - I really don't know the right answer, I'm just not 100% sure 'open justice' really doesn't descend into witch hunting on a regular basis.
The fact that the system allowed this to occur is the responsibility of the hospital. The advantage of this for us geeks is that we can point to it when discussing security with senior management; that sort of scale of fine does get their attention. OTOH if we don't make the effort to ensure our systems are secure, we deserve the kicking.
A mine in the earth or at sea is an autonomous weapon on one possible definition. So is a proximity triggered automatic rifle, as used on the Berlin Wall. The ship has sailed; the question is what parameters can be introduced.
Ensure that the insurance charges for moving crude oil fully covers the entire cost of the disruption; all deaths evaluated at $10m, $1m for significant injury etc. This will force the rail companies to use only safe methods compared with the alternatives because the use of old wagons will be stupidly expensive in insurance fees.
As the article makes clear, where ISPs are liable to be left by consumers who are unimpressed with their service, there isn't an issue. It's only because these ISPs can't be avoided that they have the clout to pull this stunt. Markets are good - Americans don't have a free market in ISP provision, a true irony!
Qualitative Easing is successfully resolving the debt burdens of the countries that have indulged in it, though noone is admitting the fact.
The real issue is whether, as Keynes argues, the savings of those who don't want to spend them, can be successfully recycled to the poor, who do want to spend them, but aren't being paid enough to keep demand up. This is brought to a crisis in China where the poor's saving rates are very high because they need to protect themselves in the absence of a meaningful welfare net and their dependence therefore on their ONE child for their future prosperity. If China can break out of this pattern, there is hope for at least one more iteration. But overall don't forget that the poorest in the world ARE getting richer - it's only the Westerners who are getting squeezed.
Slashdot Mirror
In British law we have the slightly perverse sight of government instutition being charged in their own right - without the need to identify an individual. The outcome is fines paid by one part of government to another, but it does focus the leadership to get it right (my own police force has at least one conviction for health and safety violations arising from the death of police office).
That is what should happen surely?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... records that eight states still have a religion test on the statute books. It's been disabled now, but clearly evidences that the states had no compunction about imposing religious test for the first 150 years of the Federal constitution.
It's clear that any policy of the states was not prevented by the Federal constitution as originally enacted. Coincidentally the Washington Post has an article about the continuing requirement to believe in God in 7 state's laws http://www.washingtonpost.com/... Note that these are CURRENT laws - though effectively disabled by the 1960s decision of SCOTUS referred to in the article. But it is clear that there was no compunction about religious testsfor at least the first 170 years of the constitution!
The point I am making is that that legal status persisted - in some cases for 50 years after the formation of the USA. In that context the first amendment clearly was not designed for the purpose to which it has become used - to exclude religion from state institutions such as schools etc.
Given the rate at which life expectancy is rising, a lot of people are going to be alive a lot longer than they expect.
Clearly indicates that a Muslim is not bound by an oath to an 'idolater'. This provides plenty of space to justify lying in court, let alone in day to day discourse...
Almost all the "evidence" for evolution is post-facto interpretation of data to conform to the model. The usual evidence for evolution that is trotted out doesn't actually demonstrate EVOLUTION; it tends to demonstrate natural selection as a mechanism for explaining the prevalence of certain variations in species over others. There is no observation of speciation in, for example, viruses or bacteria where generations are extremely short. Evolution is a powerful story. It provides a justification for being an atheist - so is not adopted neutrally, but part of a wider ideological package.
That Jefferson was campaigning for a wall of separation doesn't detract from the fact that most of the states had established churches. THEREFORE to interpret the FEDERAL constitution as imposing a wall of separation on the STATES makes no sense, because the states showed no particular inclination to disestablish as a result of indepence, despite your ideological commitment to doing so... Of course they did within a couple of generations, but because the wanted to, not because they were mandated by the federal constitution.
As the quaran allows him to http://www.thereligionofpeace....
The traditional understanding of the faith is that it is a military organisation, committed to the conquest of the world to establish the kingdom of Allah by force. Many Muslims have abandoned this belief - but there is an important element in Islam which allows a Muslim to lie if it will advance the cause of Islam. Therefore it is impossible to trust what Muslims say about their beliefs - because they are free to lie. In this context being a muslim could be argued to be 'probable cause' for surveillance. Harsh but true. http://www.thereligionofpeace.... offers Quaranic reference that enable this behaviour.
Reading the bible provides a clear contrast between Judeo-Christian ethics and Islam - most elegantly demonstrated in Islam's rejection of the ban on more than 40 lashes, and it's destruction of God's creation when a person's hand is chopped off for theft. By contrast the Hebrew bible offers only execution or 6 years slavery for offenders; they are required to pay back three times what they stole, and if they can't are sold into slavery.
The detail which most Americans are unaware of is that at the time of the Revolution most of the states had established churches, mostly Anglican but also Congregationalist. The amendment in the constitution was to protect those state churches from the federal government, NOT to create a barrier between church and state.
The big issue is the realisation for the liberal establishment that not all creationists are scientifically illiterate, the belief which they have tended to cling to whenever a creationist asks them a hard question about evolution and they can't answer. The reality is that SOME of 'creation science' is asking legitimate questions which evolutionists find hard work to explain (e.g. the irreducible complexity of some biological systems that requires a BIG leap of faith to believe emerged spontaneously, some rock formations with fossiled trees extending through far too many layers). People who ask these hard questions tend to get disdained rather than engaged with; this is bad science.
There WILL be legislation proposed very soon for a similar restriction on US companies. That it is stupid, irrational and anti-privacy won;t stop some ignorant legislators from suggesting it. So in that sense alone it does affect the US...
Adblocker plus on Firefox = no ads EASY!
For better or worse, Obama isn't President of the whole world...
There will be a jury - though one may be sceptical about how unprejudiced they will be - and the judge will be responsible for ensuring real fair play. The issue is, of course, about trust of these institutions given there is no chance for the gawping public to follow the details of the case. Given the inability of the public to accept jury verdicts when the they are 'sure' that the opposite answer is the right one, one has to doubt that the gawping public offers a great deal. I admit I'm thinking out loud here - I really don't know the right answer, I'm just not 100% sure 'open justice' really doesn't descend into witch hunting on a regular basis.
Just wondering!
is what the article say, which does make perfect sense.
The fact that the system allowed this to occur is the responsibility of the hospital. The advantage of this for us geeks is that we can point to it when discussing security with senior management; that sort of scale of fine does get their attention. OTOH if we don't make the effort to ensure our systems are secure, we deserve the kicking.
A mine in the earth or at sea is an autonomous weapon on one possible definition. So is a proximity triggered automatic rifle, as used on the Berlin Wall. The ship has sailed; the question is what parameters can be introduced.
Ensure that the insurance charges for moving crude oil fully covers the entire cost of the disruption; all deaths evaluated at $10m, $1m for significant injury etc. This will force the rail companies to use only safe methods compared with the alternatives because the use of old wagons will be stupidly expensive in insurance fees.
As the article makes clear, where ISPs are liable to be left by consumers who are unimpressed with their service, there isn't an issue. It's only because these ISPs can't be avoided that they have the clout to pull this stunt. Markets are good - Americans don't have a free market in ISP provision, a true irony!
Qualitative Easing is successfully resolving the debt burdens of the countries that have indulged in it, though noone is admitting the fact. The real issue is whether, as Keynes argues, the savings of those who don't want to spend them, can be successfully recycled to the poor, who do want to spend them, but aren't being paid enough to keep demand up. This is brought to a crisis in China where the poor's saving rates are very high because they need to protect themselves in the absence of a meaningful welfare net and their dependence therefore on their ONE child for their future prosperity. If China can break out of this pattern, there is hope for at least one more iteration. But overall don't forget that the poorest in the world ARE getting richer - it's only the Westerners who are getting squeezed.