Which is more racist, choosing a kid's school based on geographic proximity or choosing a kid's school based on race? Hint: the latter is the literal definition of racial discrimination.
Scenario: 1. Innocent person is questioned by police. 2. Police inform the suspect that a man was "executed" in his building. 3. Police ask whether suspect was involved. 4. Suspect tell police "I've never fired a gun in my life." 5. Police note that they never mentioned any gun. 6. Suspect is tried and convicted on the basis of no alibi, proximity, and apparent knowledge of the crime.
Criteria: 1. Had he remained silent, a mere lack of alibi and proximity would never get him convicted. 2. It is better for the innocent man to remain free and for the police to continue to investigate and possibly find someone who is guilty. 3. A guilty person is more likely to leave evidence of a crime than an innocent person. The innocent person's apparent knowledge of the crime is more likely to harm him than a guilty person's because there will be more evidence to be found for the guilty person on average. 4. The information came purely from the forced testimony that would have been barred by the 5th. 5. It doesn't really reflect on the competency of the people in the system because they all acted okay. The suspect really did say something incriminating. The conviction may be tenuous, but it's hard to critique the non-existent details of something I just made up. The competence of the suspect is relevant. But people have varying degrees of that and will react differently to questioning. The foolish person deserves justice as much as the wise one.
Well, if I'm being honest, I assumed you didn't mean the plane and that P-38 must also refer be something small, like a pocket knife. I looked it up and found it was a can opener. I am deeply ashamed that I ever implied that I thought you might actually be carrying around a WW2-era fighter.
Yes. And I used to have already had told you that, but now I haven't yet not failed to have told you. That's why you now no longer know. You've now never known!
I agree, but I think that the blame associated with each individual is also qualitatively different. The owner's blame is related to his good judgment in a practical matter. He didn't think things through or didn't take obvious actions that could have drastically reduced the chances of the loss. But the thief's blame is moral. He took explicit immoral actions that directly harmed another. They both have characteristics in common and fit the word "blame," but there is a real distinction between the cases beyond just a matter of degree.
I wonder if other languages use different words for these two concepts.
There's very little evidence about capital punishment and crime rates one way or the other. There are a couple of likely reasons for that.
The first is that, surprisingly, it's not always actually that severe a punishment. I know, how is execution ot that severe a punishment. That sounds absolutely nuts to me too. Consider a population that commits a disproportionately high number of murders, crack dealing gang members in the 80s-90s. They committed lots of murder s and so there were many of them on death row. People are kept on death row for quite a while before being executed. But outside of prison the drug dealers were killing one another all the time; that's why there were so many on death row. The life expectancy on death row was actually higher than the life expectancy of their lives outside.
The second is that not many people are executed. Even in Texas only 15 people were executed in 2012. It's like winning the reverse lottery. The risk of being executed is just too low to be a significant factor in decision making in aggregate.
US Constitution Amendment 14: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
There's no legitimate way that government could be reading these emails 180 days and "opened" or not without a probably cause warrant. I understand the fact is they do, so it's great that Texas is passing the law to stymie that abuse, but how is it possibly justified to begin with? It's right there plain to read. That's prohibited. Has nobody taken it to court?
Naturalized is different from natural born. Natural born is not actually legally defined anywhere, but the the context of historical uses does support the idea that being born of US citizens would count as natural born.
The bullies should not be blamed for the girl's death either. What they did was bad. I don't defend it at all. But suicide is not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of it. I know you could cite several examples that ended in suicide, but consider the millions of instances that have far lesser consequences. Hold people responsible for the things they do and for the immediate and foreseeable consequences of the things they do.
Yeah that's something like the retcon they went with. Lucas has said that the original intent there was for Han to spout fancy-sounding nonsense and Obi Wan to catch him at it. There was no explicit dialog of Obi Wan calling him out, we were just supposed to be able to tell from the actors' expressions. The idea was to further set up Han as this con man type figure and also show that Obi Wan is pretty worldly himself. Unfortunately bad directorial choices about cutting between cameras ruined the effect.
The article states outright that the category includes "computer facilities management" and "other computer related services" and mentions "IT wage and employment trends." Including so many tangentially related positions makes it hard to draw any conclusions about software development trends.
When you create a child you're on the hook for raising it. You don't start out knowing everything about it so you have to learn about it at the same time you teach it. That's moral. A new form of life is necessarily going to require more learning on our part in order to raise well. We will make mistakes. We will hurt it. But that's life. The only realistic other option is not to create it to begin with. Better to exist imperfectly than not all.
14th Amendment, due process and equal protection. The government is barred from abridging privileges, taking property, etc. of citizens without due process. I'll grant that it would be constitutional, if somewhat capricious, to ban non-citizens from participating in such a corporation.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't contribute tax-exempt to any TRUE Scotsman!
Or it can be done well. One doesn't see such drama in telecommunications or passenger air travel, for example.
Or electricity. In Texas.
Which is more racist, choosing a kid's school based on geographic proximity or choosing a kid's school based on race? Hint: the latter is the literal definition of racial discrimination.
Scenario:
1. Innocent person is questioned by police.
2. Police inform the suspect that a man was "executed" in his building.
3. Police ask whether suspect was involved.
4. Suspect tell police "I've never fired a gun in my life."
5. Police note that they never mentioned any gun.
6. Suspect is tried and convicted on the basis of no alibi, proximity, and apparent knowledge of the crime.
Criteria:
1. Had he remained silent, a mere lack of alibi and proximity would never get him convicted.
2. It is better for the innocent man to remain free and for the police to continue to investigate and possibly find someone who is guilty.
3. A guilty person is more likely to leave evidence of a crime than an innocent person. The innocent person's apparent knowledge of the crime is more likely to harm him than a guilty person's because there will be more evidence to be found for the guilty person on average.
4. The information came purely from the forced testimony that would have been barred by the 5th.
5. It doesn't really reflect on the competency of the people in the system because they all acted okay. The suspect really did say something incriminating. The conviction may be tenuous, but it's hard to critique the non-existent details of something I just made up. The competence of the suspect is relevant. But people have varying degrees of that and will react differently to questioning. The foolish person deserves justice as much as the wise one.
Well, if I'm being honest, I assumed you didn't mean the plane and that P-38 must also refer be something small, like a pocket knife. I looked it up and found it was a can opener. I am deeply ashamed that I ever implied that I thought you might actually be carrying around a WW2-era fighter.
I had to look that up to figure out why you were trying to take a P-38 Lightning through TSA.
Yes. And I used to have already had told you that, but now I haven't yet not failed to have told you. That's why you now no longer know. You've now never known!
Or is it everyone has permissions to execute him?
I agree, but I think that the blame associated with each individual is also qualitatively different. The owner's blame is related to his good judgment in a practical matter. He didn't think things through or didn't take obvious actions that could have drastically reduced the chances of the loss. But the thief's blame is moral. He took explicit immoral actions that directly harmed another. They both have characteristics in common and fit the word "blame," but there is a real distinction between the cases beyond just a matter of degree.
I wonder if other languages use different words for these two concepts.
I don't think someone who is willing and able to commit genocide is going to cancel the plans because the UN bans genocide-bots.
Source for the relative life expectancy figures: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_levitt_analyzes_crack_economics.html
Source for the total execution figures: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
There's very little evidence about capital punishment and crime rates one way or the other. There are a couple of likely reasons for that.
The first is that, surprisingly, it's not always actually that severe a punishment. I know, how is execution ot that severe a punishment. That sounds absolutely nuts to me too. Consider a population that commits a disproportionately high number of murders, crack dealing gang members in the 80s-90s. They committed lots of murder s and so there were many of them on death row. People are kept on death row for quite a while before being executed. But outside of prison the drug dealers were killing one another all the time; that's why there were so many on death row. The life expectancy on death row was actually higher than the life expectancy of their lives outside.
The second is that not many people are executed. Even in Texas only 15 people were executed in 2012. It's like winning the reverse lottery. The risk of being executed is just too low to be a significant factor in decision making in aggregate.
The distinction is made everywhere because the concepts are distinct. Some places of the world don't execute people while others do.
That article is about executions not murders. You are either confused or making a deliberate misrepresentation.
US Constitution Amendment 14: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
There's no legitimate way that government could be reading these emails 180 days and "opened" or not without a probably cause warrant. I understand the fact is they do, so it's great that Texas is passing the law to stymie that abuse, but how is it possibly justified to begin with? It's right there plain to read. That's prohibited. Has nobody taken it to court?
Naturalized is different from natural born. Natural born is not actually legally defined anywhere, but the the context of historical uses does support the idea that being born of US citizens would count as natural born.
Texas murder it's own citizens? Weren't you just complaining about tin foil hat nonsense a few post up?
The bullies should not be blamed for the girl's death either. What they did was bad. I don't defend it at all. But suicide is not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of it. I know you could cite several examples that ended in suicide, but consider the millions of instances that have far lesser consequences. Hold people responsible for the things they do and for the immediate and foreseeable consequences of the things they do.
Strike that. Reverse it.
Yeah that's something like the retcon they went with. Lucas has said that the original intent there was for Han to spout fancy-sounding nonsense and Obi Wan to catch him at it. There was no explicit dialog of Obi Wan calling him out, we were just supposed to be able to tell from the actors' expressions. The idea was to further set up Han as this con man type figure and also show that Obi Wan is pretty worldly himself. Unfortunately bad directorial choices about cutting between cameras ruined the effect.
The article states outright that the category includes "computer facilities management" and "other computer related services" and mentions "IT wage and employment trends." Including so many tangentially related positions makes it hard to draw any conclusions about software development trends.
That's true. But it does allow you to "shoot" with the laser without missing with a bullet
According to the article that is exactly how it works.
When you create a child you're on the hook for raising it. You don't start out knowing everything about it so you have to learn about it at the same time you teach it. That's moral. A new form of life is necessarily going to require more learning on our part in order to raise well. We will make mistakes. We will hurt it. But that's life. The only realistic other option is not to create it to begin with. Better to exist imperfectly than not all.
14th Amendment, due process and equal protection. The government is barred from abridging privileges, taking property, etc. of citizens without due process. I'll grant that it would be constitutional, if somewhat capricious, to ban non-citizens from participating in such a corporation.