And, what of the fact that those that abuse drugs are often endanger others, incapable of doing their jobs,and often become criminals when they can no longer support their habit by legal means?
What you, in your simplistic world view, fail to see is the act destroys the person and makes him a bane on society. My taxes should not go to drug rehab for your ilk. Instead my taxes should go to executing them.
So if you had an accountant who managed your accounts and kept all the records, numbers, and access information for you, and you decided to fire him, he could destroy or even just refuse to give you the needed information leaving you unable to access your money, or even know exactly where it is, and that would not be illegal because you had already fired him, right?
But, it is imposed on manufactures who are not in the state and may not even be in the country. It would also regulate the movement of good between states, which is again reserved for the federal government by Article 1.
States can not impose requirements on items being sold nationally, with a very few exceptions where are actually encoded in the federal laws, such as California emissions and the California flammability standards, and they are often in place before the national standards and are grandfathered in.
He prevented authorized access by withholding the passwords.
By refusing to give the passwords, he did wrong. Your own words prove the point.
You may as well say "other than shooting someone, he did NO wrong". You can't ignore the fact that he did, in fact, do something wrong because it is convenient to your argument.
The NY state legislature does not have the authority to order the parental control lockout. That falls into controlling interstate trade (by imposing production requirements that would effect all devices sold, whether in NY or not), and that power is reserved for the federal government by Article 2 of the Constitution.
I think the new definition of childhood actually extends into the mid-20s because of more societal pressure. They're in college, they really aren't responsible yet, etc.
You aren't mistaken there. A couple of days ago, a twentysomething guy died when he was riding his motorcycle like an asshole and couldn't make a turn. The newspaper report and many of the comments referred to him as a "kid". He was not a kid. One stops being a kid way before one can legally drink.
For example, if a hurricane came and leveled a town, would you want them to think about the funding and decide to authorize it 2 weeks later or just authorize it fast? Same thing with terrorist attacks or nuclear explosions.
Proper preparation and proper emergency agencies would make such things unnecessary. In other words, proper government would make such things unnecessary.
illegal immigrants are only exploited by businesses because they can't go to any authority to complain about work conditions, or pay.
No. If they don't want to be exploited, they should not come here illegally.
Making something illegal makes criminals, but it doesn't make the illegal something wrong.
Fail. Something becomes illegal because those who make the laws believe it is wrong. By definition, something that is illegal is wrong where it is illegal. You may as well say "If we legalize rape, there will be no more rapists."
While your post is informative, it is irrelevant because BC/AD and BCE/CE cover the same time periods. The former is based on when Jesus is supposed to have been born, the later is based on the former for convenience. The former is not useful because it is based on a marker of dubious value.
Even the Gospels don't agree on when Jesus was supposedly born. The Gospels say it can be no later than 4 BCE, and at the same time no earlier than 6 CE.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot the ever popular performance upgrades of a coffee can sized exhaust tip and a TRD sticker.
Yeah. I prefer the look of the Lean Machine.
That isn't a very accurate comparison. He didn't destroy any records, and he didn't remove anything from the premises.
My hypothetical accountant doesn't have to destroy anything. He merely has to refuse to tell his ex-client the information, just like this guy did.
On that same note, though... What if your hypothetical accountant died?
What if this guy died? Same situation, only, then, the accountant's files would be available while the information this guy had would die with him.
Hell, bitch, I knew you were making shit up when you suggested the way to deal with criminals is to get rid of laws.
Rehab does not help criminals. They just go back to drugs when they get out.
And, what of the fact that those that abuse drugs are often endanger others, incapable of doing their jobs,and often become criminals when they can no longer support their habit by legal means?
What you, in your simplistic world view, fail to see is the act destroys the person and makes him a bane on society. My taxes should not go to drug rehab for your ilk. Instead my taxes should go to executing them.
So if you had an accountant who managed your accounts and kept all the records, numbers, and access information for you, and you decided to fire him, he could destroy or even just refuse to give you the needed information leaving you unable to access your money, or even know exactly where it is, and that would not be illegal because you had already fired him, right?
Fail. Read what I wrote again a little more carefully.
But, it is imposed on manufactures who are not in the state and may not even be in the country. It would also regulate the movement of good between states, which is again reserved for the federal government by Article 1.
States can not impose requirements on items being sold nationally, with a very few exceptions where are actually encoded in the federal laws, such as California emissions and the California flammability standards, and they are often in place before the national standards and are grandfathered in.
Then, you have the perfect solution to the crime problem: abolish all laws. Then, there will be no crime and no criminals.
Of course, there will be nothing to protect people like you from people like me.
He prevented authorized access by withholding the passwords.
By refusing to give the passwords, he did wrong. Your own words prove the point.
You may as well say "other than shooting someone, he did NO wrong". You can't ignore the fact that he did, in fact, do something wrong because it is convenient to your argument.
I notice he said "drug crime" and not "crime used to fund drug purchases" or "drug use related crime".
There is a big difference between the two.
Grr. Article 1, not Article 2.
The NY state legislature does not have the authority to order the parental control lockout. That falls into controlling interstate trade (by imposing production requirements that would effect all devices sold, whether in NY or not), and that power is reserved for the federal government by Article 2 of the Constitution.
It is criminal when "not doing your job" results in damage, danger, or denial of access to government computer systems.
An anonymous source is worthless without independent, named source verification.
Sounds good at first blush, but implementation would suck.
I think the new definition of childhood actually extends into the mid-20s because of more societal pressure. They're in college, they really aren't responsible yet, etc.
You aren't mistaken there. A couple of days ago, a twentysomething guy died when he was riding his motorcycle like an asshole and couldn't make a turn. The newspaper report and many of the comments referred to him as a "kid". He was not a kid. One stops being a kid way before one can legally drink.
For example, if a hurricane came and leveled a town, would you want them to think about the funding and decide to authorize it 2 weeks later or just authorize it fast? Same thing with terrorist attacks or nuclear explosions.
Proper preparation and proper emergency agencies would make such things unnecessary. In other words, proper government would make such things unnecessary.
See you are an example of the problem. He has a good grasp of proper government, not politics.
If he had a good grasp of politics, he would see nothing wrong with pandering to get elected.
illegal immigrants are only exploited by businesses because they can't go to any authority to complain about work conditions, or pay.
No. If they don't want to be exploited, they should not come here illegally.
Making something illegal makes criminals, but it doesn't make the illegal something wrong.
Fail. Something becomes illegal because those who make the laws believe it is wrong. By definition, something that is illegal is wrong where it is illegal. You may as well say "If we legalize rape, there will be no more rapists."
While your post is informative, it is irrelevant because BC/AD and BCE/CE cover the same time periods. The former is based on when Jesus is supposed to have been born, the later is based on the former for convenience. The former is not useful because it is based on a marker of dubious value.
Even the Gospels don't agree on when Jesus was supposedly born. The Gospels say it can be no later than 4 BCE, and at the same time no earlier than 6 CE.
That proves nothing! It could have been spoofed by those New Mexicans! They are always invading America. They are worse than the old Mexicans.
You must be one of my cowardly, shit eating mod-stalkers.
I do something similar, but put the braces at the same tab as the conditional.
if(something)
{
do_something();
}
else
{
do_something_else();
if(otherthing)
{
do_otherthing();
}
}
It just boils down to preference.