There is no constitutional right to defend yourself with your gun.
Yes, there is.
The 2nd amendment says "right to keep and bear arms", not access them quickly.
It's like saying you're allowed to drive your car, but you can't have the keys. You can't effectively bear arms if they're locked away so that you can't get to them quickly enough for the "bearing" to be of any use. Check D.C. v. Heller.
Guns suck in close quarters anyway,
Guns are great in close quarters, especially those evil handguns.
unless you have illegal ammo you risk shooting through a wall and hitting a family member.
What "illegal ammo" would this be? You mean like the perfectly legal Glaser Safety Slugs that were designed for air marshals on airplanes and have a hard time penetrating even drywall?
Make it mandatory to keep your guns locked away, unloaded
That violates your right to protect yourself. Of course, what use is unloaded? If someone can get it out of your safe, they're probably capable of getting your bullets too. However, there are quick-open safes, either through a quick-touch combination or through finger prints. Keep the loaded pistols in there. That's what I do.
Most states have laws that don't put a burden of safes on people, but still provide an incentive. For example, if you have a gun and a minor gets his hands on it and commits a crime, you can be charged with a crime (you're essentially an accessory). It is up to you to reduce your liability for being charged with the crime by locking up the guns and/or training the children.
When you're dealing with regulation concerning a constitutional right, you always have to think least burdensome and narrowly targeted. A blanket requirement for safes is burdensome and overly broad. Making owners liable if children use the guns in a crime completely avoids any constitutional question by simply punishing an actual crime.
If the top 1% earns 40% of the countries income, they are going to need to pay 40% of the taxes.
The top 1% (over $344,000) earn 7% of the income but pay 37% of the federal income tax.
The top 5% (over $155,000) earn 32% of the income but pay 59% of the federal income tax.
I'd say we're already far beyond your equal ratio of income vs. tax paid.
And since you need at least the first 15,000 to 20,000 just to live.. the bottom 30% is already living in poverty and can't afford federal income tax.
The bottom 50% (under $32,000) earn 14% of the income and pay 2% of the federal income tax. This 2% is probably paid by the 40-50% group just under $32,000, so it is doubtful the bottom 30% pays any federal income tax at all.
because after sales tax, gas tax, cell phone tax, etc. tax
Yes, for what really hits the pocketbook of the poor, look more to regressive taxes you mentioned, like the gasoline tax. They can't afford the expensive modern fuel-efficient cars, yet still get stuck with the tax. Cell phone tax is also regressive, since a millionaire doesn't necessarily have a plan that's more expensive than the average guy (data/talk/text plan X will fit your needs regardless of income). Also look at the state income taxes, which usually take a higher percentage from the poor than federal. I wouldn't count sales tax as much since rich people tend to buy more expensive stuff so they pay more sales tax.
But this is all another positive for the Fair Tax. No income tax, and you get a sales tax of around 30%. However, the sales tax is rebated somewhere above the poverty level so no poor pay a penny in tax. The poorer you are, the more you come out ahead since the rebate will be more than you pay in sales tax. The rich get the rebate too (everybody does), but it will be a drop in the bucket compared to what they pay in tax. The average couple with two kids buys a Fiesta, the tax is made up by seven months of rebate. But your dentist's big Mercedes cost him twice in tax than your car's price, and four years of rebate won't even cover the tax he paid.
For lower speed we have Lightning. You get 8 pins plus ground. Over that, you can run pretty much anything that the pins will support, with the embedded chips in the ends doing any pin reassignment. USB3 is 8+ground+shield, so it could probably be run over Lightning. We should be able to run analog audio and video, as well as HDMI and other things too. It is the universal low-speed point-to-point connector.
Thunderbolt is meant for higher purpose than USB3, since you can theoretically run multiple monitors, RAID arrays and even an external video card over one cable at the same time. Basically, you get that old docking station via one small plug.
Of course there will be some meeting in the middle, as USB3, HDMI, Gigabit Ethernet and others can be run on both.
That perfectly lines up with my comment about guns. Except in that case, the facts have a conservative slant. So while you could count a Bush administration to cherry pick climate change experts from skeptic organizations, you could also count on Obama to cherry pick gun experts from anti-gun organizations.
It will be interesting to see how experts on gun issues could be allocated. In my experience, those who are experts tend to have a bias towards the right to keep and bear arms, towards the option of personal ownership. Those who are against guns and personal ownership are often quite uneducated on the subject, so anti-gun gun experts will be fairly rare.
For example, a petition to stop restricting possession of sound suppressors (a.k.a., "silencers"), and remove suppressor barrel threading from any definition of a restricted weapon. Any unbiased expert can tell you the facts: Suppressor attachments for today's common firearms take something that is so loud it can cause instant hearing damage, and bring it down to just pretty damn loud, but at least below the threshold of instant damage. To avoid hearing damage from repeated shots, you would still require other hearing protection.
They will tell you that the the more suppressed you want the sound, you have to use less and less lethal rounds. This would go down to a very good suppressor for a well-designed.22 gun, which can get less loud (maybe like a loud clap) when used with subsonic rounds. Less lethality, less power, not exactly the weapon of choice for criminals, especially since with a suppressor the pistol would be less concealable.
They will tell you that the quiet "pfft" sound in the movies and video games that nobody around can hear is completely fake. So with them criminals will not be able to sneak around killing people silently. Their main use is for legal shooters to save their ears and not piss off the neighbors (wouldn't it be nice if pistol ranges were quieter?).
So if the petition is posed to the experts in general, it would be approved. The anti-gun experts would most likely disapprove because they just don't like suppressors, but they're in the minority.
So here comes the big question: who picks the experts? A pro-gun administration would likely pick its expert pool from among general experts. An anti-gun administration would likely pick its expert pool from among sources known to be anti-gun, and any such petition will not be considered on it merits.
The problem with public-private partnerships is the high likelihood that politics will be used to make business decisions. That will probably not produce very good results. It also opens up a huge channel for corruption, with businesses paying off politicians to send taxpayer money their way.
Even when you build a framework for these partnerships and attempt to instill checks and balances into it, it can go wrong with political pressure. Look at Solyndra. It was done through a system that had the beancounters looking at the books just like a real VC would, then approving or rejecting the deal. Politics and lobbying were not part of the process. Under this system the Solyndra application was about to die near the end of the Bush presidency.
But then comes the Obama presidency, and one of his biggest donation bundlers was an investor in Solyndra. Solyndra started lobbying too. And of course Obama was hot to push his "green" initiatives. So despite the reservations of the beancounters, it was revived and approved, and you know the rest of the story.
As far as the first 1/2 of that quote is concerned that's pretty much how styluses for capacitive panels work
No, it's not. Styli are normally a conductive stick when a tip that trips the sensors just as your conductive finger would. This one has a non-conductive tip and emits an electrical field that trips the sensors.
The second half is that it can actually sense the capacitive sensors being tripped, so it has feedback.
First, a capacitive screen only requires a conductive stick with a tip big enough to trip sense lines. This one generates a field to trip sense lines so the tip can be much smaller, which also prevents accidentally tripping multiple sense lines. Let's see, it has a method to allow more accuracy by having more sense lines (rows and columns), and a method to have multiple signals to allow the display to detect angle and roll. It also has a method for multiplexing the lines and stylus, so it will recognize a stylus touch separate from any other touches. There are many more new things about this I've never seen, such as building the capacitve sensor into the stylus itself, having it sync wired or wireless about what each is sensing.
Did those things "either act as a drive electrode to create an electric field between the drive electrode and the sense lines of a mutual capacitive touch sensor panel, or as a sense electrode for sensing capacitively coupled signals from one or more stimulated drive rows and columns of the touch sensor panel or both"?
Nope. It's new and different. This is what patents are about. Apple's not claiming the stylus, but the specific technology that makes this stylus different from previous ones.
We both know he did the crimes. You just have a problem with the time.
Hacking (yes, this is a form of hacking), gaining unauthorized access in order to gain personal information and redistribute it. I think that deserves a few months.
Do it 26 times, that adds up. Hey, maybe Madoff shouldn't be in jail forever like he is. He only stole some billions of dollars, and that's only a multiple of thousands of dollars, for which you could just get community service. Why did he get a 100+ year sentence?
You simply cannot equate generals not being tried for crimes with CEOs not being tried for crimes using this criteria. It's like saying the SEC said various actions are completely legal and nobody will be punished for doing them, and then complaining that no CEOs went to jail for doing it.
What we're talking about here is actions committed that according to our laws as written and interpreted are considered to be actual crimes.
That does nothing to address the serious systemic corruption
There is no serious systemic corruption among the generals in our military. Almost all are actually out there to do what is best for the country. I've known a few, have you? No? Then maybe STFU on subjects about which you have no knowledge.
A friend of mine at an air base guard post in Cold War Germany had a blacked-out limo pull up. The driver showed ID, and said there was a general in the back, and allow him through. My friend's orders was nobody gets in without ID, period. So he demanded those in the back roll down the window and present ID. They did not. He demanded this to the driver again, and he refused, getting all agitated and angry, threatening to just drive through.
So he pointed his weapon at the back of the limo and demanded ID immediately, or he shoots. At that point the general's aide rolled down the window, leaned into view and handed him the IDs of all in the back. He looked them over, gave them back, stood back, presented arms (what you do instead of saluting when you're armed), and they drove off.
I think this was a test, because he was given a commendation not long afterwards.
First, generals are less likely to pull the antics commonly found among CEOs. For the most part they weren't born with a silver spoon. Usually they started with a bachelor's degree paid for by the military (either through a service academy or ROTC). All hold a master's, usually gained mid-career at a military command college, not as a drunk frat boy at a business school. They all worked their way up. They define their own success by the success of the units they command, by doing so well they get promoted to higher responsibility. Well, I knew one who didn't want to be promoted, but that was the promotion they were trying to give him would remove him further from the troops where he felt he could do the most good.
The system is pretty good, although not perfect, at weeding out the undesirables. One wrong move can easily be a career ender. Simply getting passed over for promotion once at any of the several ranks before general seriously reduces the likelihood of ever making it that far. Get passed over again, and the career is over before general, you'll probably retire at that rank (if you made it far enough to retire).
But far too many CEOs these days measure their success by how much money they can bank, and the system fosters such behavior. Who cares about the success of the company, long-term shareholder value, or the employees? They want to push things as far as they can to get as rich as they can. Thus, you have lots of CEOs committing fraud or raping the company to get those short-term stock rises.
And of course in the end we have the relative numbers. There are fewer than 500 generals/admirals in the armed forces (as dictated by law), and over 6,000 CEOs of publicly traded companies on the major exchanges. Were all else the same, you'd expect to see less than 1/10th the number of prosecutions of generals. We've named two generals put on trial recently. Name 20 CEOs.
And one final nail in your argument, the military has other punishment. Even if a trial doesn't happen because a conviction-sure case would be difficult, there's still non-judicial punishment to include fines and demotion and forced retirement (which affects retirement benefits). If they can't do that because the general demands a court martial they can't win, they can simply end that general's career. Obama just fired the Admiral commanding our Middle East strike group because of questions about his judgment, not even an illegal act alleged. Unless he's cleared, his career is over (probably is anyway). He'll be given a desk job until he can be put out to pasture, he'll never command another soldier again. This is a seriously crushing blow to a general. There's no equivalent for a CEO. Sure, a CEO can be fired, but he can simply take his 7-8 figure golden parachute and continue his career at another company.
No general has been prosecuted for torture after the Bush administration
If you mean that rendition stuff, that's because it has been determined they didn't break any laws. Sorry, but if you're talking accountability by the top brass for that, anything they did was at the direction President Bush and his civilian leadership. They can't go down unless he goes down since it appears Bush didn't take the convenient step of throwing one of them under the bus.
If you mean the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, up to lieutenant colonel rank was tried, as that was the highest level of person who was actually involved (unfortunately, someone didn't read him his rights, letting some charges be dismissed). Above that, his colonel received non-judicial punishment for dereliction of duty, and his general was demoted just because that happened under her command.
But as far as generals in general (haha) being court martialed, it does happen. Just recently they tried the highly respected BG Jeffrey Sinclair of the 82nd Airborne for sexual misconduct with subordinate officers and abuse of his power. This guy was like a god in his unit, practically revered like Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now, and he still went down. Even if found not guilty, his career is over.
There is much more accountability if it's military. They don't even have to break a regular criminal law to go down, a simple finding of dereliction of duty is enough. Imagine if our recent high-profile CEOs could have been criminally prosecuted for dereliction of duty, without even having to try to prove intentional fraud.
And then there's that recording floating around of a long-term unemployed guy who refused a job because it would require him to be there too early -- 8 in the morning.
And still nothing for what is the benefit to ISPs if they obey you?
Happy customers. A lot of companies value that.
So you cannot think from another person's point of view?
Yes I can: greed and power. I said that.
Now it is you who are incapable of thinking from a consumer's point of view. I don't mind taking advantage of the fact that it is perfectly legal to make fun of your mental handicap. Now where did I put that can of Trollbegone?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there is.
It's like saying you're allowed to drive your car, but you can't have the keys. You can't effectively bear arms if they're locked away so that you can't get to them quickly enough for the "bearing" to be of any use. Check D.C. v. Heller.
Guns are great in close quarters, especially those evil handguns.
What "illegal ammo" would this be? You mean like the perfectly legal Glaser Safety Slugs that were designed for air marshals on airplanes and have a hard time penetrating even drywall?
That violates your right to protect yourself. Of course, what use is unloaded? If someone can get it out of your safe, they're probably capable of getting your bullets too. However, there are quick-open safes, either through a quick-touch combination or through finger prints. Keep the loaded pistols in there. That's what I do.
Most states have laws that don't put a burden of safes on people, but still provide an incentive. For example, if you have a gun and a minor gets his hands on it and commits a crime, you can be charged with a crime (you're essentially an accessory). It is up to you to reduce your liability for being charged with the crime by locking up the guns and/or training the children.
When you're dealing with regulation concerning a constitutional right, you always have to think least burdensome and narrowly targeted. A blanket requirement for safes is burdensome and overly broad. Making owners liable if children use the guns in a crime completely avoids any constitutional question by simply punishing an actual crime.
The top 1% (over $344,000) earn 7% of the income but pay 37% of the federal income tax.
The top 5% (over $155,000) earn 32% of the income but pay 59% of the federal income tax.
I'd say we're already far beyond your equal ratio of income vs. tax paid.
The bottom 50% (under $32,000) earn 14% of the income and pay 2% of the federal income tax. This 2% is probably paid by the 40-50% group just under $32,000, so it is doubtful the bottom 30% pays any federal income tax at all.
Yes, for what really hits the pocketbook of the poor, look more to regressive taxes you mentioned, like the gasoline tax. They can't afford the expensive modern fuel-efficient cars, yet still get stuck with the tax. Cell phone tax is also regressive, since a millionaire doesn't necessarily have a plan that's more expensive than the average guy (data/talk/text plan X will fit your needs regardless of income). Also look at the state income taxes, which usually take a higher percentage from the poor than federal. I wouldn't count sales tax as much since rich people tend to buy more expensive stuff so they pay more sales tax.
But this is all another positive for the Fair Tax. No income tax, and you get a sales tax of around 30%. However, the sales tax is rebated somewhere above the poverty level so no poor pay a penny in tax. The poorer you are, the more you come out ahead since the rebate will be more than you pay in sales tax. The rich get the rebate too (everybody does), but it will be a drop in the bucket compared to what they pay in tax. The average couple with two kids buys a Fiesta, the tax is made up by seven months of rebate. But your dentist's big Mercedes cost him twice in tax than your car's price, and four years of rebate won't even cover the tax he paid.
"I accept this position as CEO."
you could open a window
80 MB/s? Firewire 800 from 2003 can do better than that.
For lower speed we have Lightning. You get 8 pins plus ground. Over that, you can run pretty much anything that the pins will support, with the embedded chips in the ends doing any pin reassignment. USB3 is 8+ground+shield, so it could probably be run over Lightning. We should be able to run analog audio and video, as well as HDMI and other things too. It is the universal low-speed point-to-point connector.
Thunderbolt is meant for higher purpose than USB3, since you can theoretically run multiple monitors, RAID arrays and even an external video card over one cable at the same time. Basically, you get that old docking station via one small plug.
Of course there will be some meeting in the middle, as USB3, HDMI, Gigabit Ethernet and others can be run on both.
There is a lot of legal liability limitation for airlines and airplane manufacturers, both in the US and internationally by treaty.
That perfectly lines up with my comment about guns. Except in that case, the facts have a conservative slant. So while you could count a Bush administration to cherry pick climate change experts from skeptic organizations, you could also count on Obama to cherry pick gun experts from anti-gun organizations.
It will be interesting to see how experts on gun issues could be allocated. In my experience, those who are experts tend to have a bias towards the right to keep and bear arms, towards the option of personal ownership. Those who are against guns and personal ownership are often quite uneducated on the subject, so anti-gun gun experts will be fairly rare.
For example, a petition to stop restricting possession of sound suppressors (a.k.a., "silencers"), and remove suppressor barrel threading from any definition of a restricted weapon. Any unbiased expert can tell you the facts: Suppressor attachments for today's common firearms take something that is so loud it can cause instant hearing damage, and bring it down to just pretty damn loud, but at least below the threshold of instant damage. To avoid hearing damage from repeated shots, you would still require other hearing protection.
They will tell you that the the more suppressed you want the sound, you have to use less and less lethal rounds. This would go down to a very good suppressor for a well-designed .22 gun, which can get less loud (maybe like a loud clap) when used with subsonic rounds. Less lethality, less power, not exactly the weapon of choice for criminals, especially since with a suppressor the pistol would be less concealable.
They will tell you that the quiet "pfft" sound in the movies and video games that nobody around can hear is completely fake. So with them criminals will not be able to sneak around killing people silently. Their main use is for legal shooters to save their ears and not piss off the neighbors (wouldn't it be nice if pistol ranges were quieter?).
So if the petition is posed to the experts in general, it would be approved. The anti-gun experts would most likely disapprove because they just don't like suppressors, but they're in the minority.
So here comes the big question: who picks the experts? A pro-gun administration would likely pick its expert pool from among general experts. An anti-gun administration would likely pick its expert pool from among sources known to be anti-gun, and any such petition will not be considered on it merits.
The problem with public-private partnerships is the high likelihood that politics will be used to make business decisions. That will probably not produce very good results. It also opens up a huge channel for corruption, with businesses paying off politicians to send taxpayer money their way.
Even when you build a framework for these partnerships and attempt to instill checks and balances into it, it can go wrong with political pressure. Look at Solyndra. It was done through a system that had the beancounters looking at the books just like a real VC would, then approving or rejecting the deal. Politics and lobbying were not part of the process. Under this system the Solyndra application was about to die near the end of the Bush presidency.
But then comes the Obama presidency, and one of his biggest donation bundlers was an investor in Solyndra. Solyndra started lobbying too. And of course Obama was hot to push his "green" initiatives. So despite the reservations of the beancounters, it was revived and approved, and you know the rest of the story.
No, it's not. Styli are normally a conductive stick when a tip that trips the sensors just as your conductive finger would. This one has a non-conductive tip and emits an electrical field that trips the sensors.
The second half is that it can actually sense the capacitive sensors being tripped, so it has feedback.
First, a capacitive screen only requires a conductive stick with a tip big enough to trip sense lines. This one generates a field to trip sense lines so the tip can be much smaller, which also prevents accidentally tripping multiple sense lines. Let's see, it has a method to allow more accuracy by having more sense lines (rows and columns), and a method to have multiple signals to allow the display to detect angle and roll. It also has a method for multiplexing the lines and stylus, so it will recognize a stylus touch separate from any other touches. There are many more new things about this I've never seen, such as building the capacitve sensor into the stylus itself, having it sync wired or wireless about what each is sensing.
Try reading the application
Did those things "either act as a drive electrode to create an electric field between the drive electrode and the sense lines of a mutual capacitive touch sensor panel, or as a sense electrode for sensing capacitively coupled signals from one or more stimulated drive rows and columns of the touch sensor panel or both"?
Nope. It's new and different. This is what patents are about. Apple's not claiming the stylus, but the specific technology that makes this stylus different from previous ones.
We both know he did the crimes. You just have a problem with the time.
Hacking (yes, this is a form of hacking), gaining unauthorized access in order to gain personal information and redistribute it. I think that deserves a few months.
Do it 26 times, that adds up. Hey, maybe Madoff shouldn't be in jail forever like he is. He only stole some billions of dollars, and that's only a multiple of thousands of dollars, for which you could just get community service. Why did he get a 100+ year sentence?
You simply cannot equate generals not being tried for crimes with CEOs not being tried for crimes using this criteria. It's like saying the SEC said various actions are completely legal and nobody will be punished for doing them, and then complaining that no CEOs went to jail for doing it.
What we're talking about here is actions committed that according to our laws as written and interpreted are considered to be actual crimes.
There is no serious systemic corruption among the generals in our military. Almost all are actually out there to do what is best for the country. I've known a few, have you? No? Then maybe STFU on subjects about which you have no knowledge.
He did the crime. Case closed.
Like they say, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
A friend of mine at an air base guard post in Cold War Germany had a blacked-out limo pull up. The driver showed ID, and said there was a general in the back, and allow him through. My friend's orders was nobody gets in without ID, period. So he demanded those in the back roll down the window and present ID. They did not. He demanded this to the driver again, and he refused, getting all agitated and angry, threatening to just drive through.
So he pointed his weapon at the back of the limo and demanded ID immediately, or he shoots. At that point the general's aide rolled down the window, leaned into view and handed him the IDs of all in the back. He looked them over, gave them back, stood back, presented arms (what you do instead of saluting when you're armed), and they drove off.
I think this was a test, because he was given a commendation not long afterwards.
First, generals are less likely to pull the antics commonly found among CEOs. For the most part they weren't born with a silver spoon. Usually they started with a bachelor's degree paid for by the military (either through a service academy or ROTC). All hold a master's, usually gained mid-career at a military command college, not as a drunk frat boy at a business school. They all worked their way up. They define their own success by the success of the units they command, by doing so well they get promoted to higher responsibility. Well, I knew one who didn't want to be promoted, but that was the promotion they were trying to give him would remove him further from the troops where he felt he could do the most good.
The system is pretty good, although not perfect, at weeding out the undesirables. One wrong move can easily be a career ender. Simply getting passed over for promotion once at any of the several ranks before general seriously reduces the likelihood of ever making it that far. Get passed over again, and the career is over before general, you'll probably retire at that rank (if you made it far enough to retire).
But far too many CEOs these days measure their success by how much money they can bank, and the system fosters such behavior. Who cares about the success of the company, long-term shareholder value, or the employees? They want to push things as far as they can to get as rich as they can. Thus, you have lots of CEOs committing fraud or raping the company to get those short-term stock rises.
And of course in the end we have the relative numbers. There are fewer than 500 generals/admirals in the armed forces (as dictated by law), and over 6,000 CEOs of publicly traded companies on the major exchanges. Were all else the same, you'd expect to see less than 1/10th the number of prosecutions of generals. We've named two generals put on trial recently. Name 20 CEOs.
And one final nail in your argument, the military has other punishment. Even if a trial doesn't happen because a conviction-sure case would be difficult, there's still non-judicial punishment to include fines and demotion and forced retirement (which affects retirement benefits). If they can't do that because the general demands a court martial they can't win, they can simply end that general's career. Obama just fired the Admiral commanding our Middle East strike group because of questions about his judgment, not even an illegal act alleged. Unless he's cleared, his career is over (probably is anyway). He'll be given a desk job until he can be put out to pasture, he'll never command another soldier again. This is a seriously crushing blow to a general. There's no equivalent for a CEO. Sure, a CEO can be fired, but he can simply take his 7-8 figure golden parachute and continue his career at another company.
Find the similarities.
If you mean that rendition stuff, that's because it has been determined they didn't break any laws. Sorry, but if you're talking accountability by the top brass for that, anything they did was at the direction President Bush and his civilian leadership. They can't go down unless he goes down since it appears Bush didn't take the convenient step of throwing one of them under the bus.
If you mean the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, up to lieutenant colonel rank was tried, as that was the highest level of person who was actually involved (unfortunately, someone didn't read him his rights, letting some charges be dismissed). Above that, his colonel received non-judicial punishment for dereliction of duty, and his general was demoted just because that happened under her command.
But as far as generals in general (haha) being court martialed, it does happen. Just recently they tried the highly respected BG Jeffrey Sinclair of the 82nd Airborne for sexual misconduct with subordinate officers and abuse of his power. This guy was like a god in his unit, practically revered like Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now, and he still went down. Even if found not guilty, his career is over.
There is much more accountability if it's military. They don't even have to break a regular criminal law to go down, a simple finding of dereliction of duty is enough. Imagine if our recent high-profile CEOs could have been criminally prosecuted for dereliction of duty, without even having to try to prove intentional fraud.
RTFA.
And then there's that recording floating around of a long-term unemployed guy who refused a job because it would require him to be there too early -- 8 in the morning.
Happy customers. A lot of companies value that.
Yes I can: greed and power. I said that.
Now it is you who are incapable of thinking from a consumer's point of view. I don't mind taking advantage of the fact that it is perfectly legal to make fun of your mental handicap. Now where did I put that can of Trollbegone?