Never covers a lot of ground. Sometimes government is the solution, and I say that as a registered Libertarian. Anyone who believes what you do is an anarchist, and likely a fool. Now, as to whether more government is the right solution in this situation, well that's a longer, more complicated conversation.
It's the right decision under current law, but it's obvious that what we need is laws setting up a third class of workers between contractors and employees.
I don't see us throwing off the yolk of oppression with violent revolution ever again.
Oh it's still possible, people just have to be pretty desperate before they're willing to risk it. Things aren't nearly bad enough yet, not by a long shot.
To fully replace garbage men with robotics would actually be very hard.
Which is why they won't try to do that right away. Instead they'll automate all the easy parts and leave humans to do the edge cases. That still results in massive layoffs.
Also unnecessary. Just automate every problem humans solve and staffing will decline over time as they'll only be needed for problems never seen before.
Weird, that's usually a behavior I would ascribe to management rather than IT. Most of the IT people I've worked with are practical number crunchers not pie in the sky folks. Engineering training doesn't leave a lot of room for wishy washy thinking.
If CEOs are personally liable for everything a company does you have completely gutted the entire purpose of a corporation which is to insulate the owners and employees from personal liability.
The purpose is to insulate the owners from liability otherwise they would be loathe to invest when their losses could far exceed the potential return. Employees enjoy no such intended insulation. In practice, they have effectively enjoyed protection but that's merely a combination of diffuse responsibility and poor enforcement, not by design.
Given that it would have been ok to own a cannon armed ship capable of executing a letter of marque at the time, I suspect the original definition was broader than the one currently in use.
Technically the correct solution would have been to pass an amendment authorizing an Air Force. Sadly the law doesn't have to compile clean prior to execution.
The structure of the sentence doesn't specify militia membership as a pre-condition for keeping and bearing arms. It merely implies that a well regulated militia requires arms, that militias are composed of citizens and thus grants citizens the right to bear arms, implying that they thereby would be able to join together into a militia if they so chose.
Slashdot Mirror
More government is never the solution.
Never covers a lot of ground. Sometimes government is the solution, and I say that as a registered Libertarian. Anyone who believes what you do is an anarchist, and likely a fool. Now, as to whether more government is the right solution in this situation, well that's a longer, more complicated conversation.
It's the right decision under current law, but it's obvious that what we need is laws setting up a third class of workers between contractors and employees.
In this case, forbid him Internet access for 4 years, with 2 years under strict supervision.
That's the first alternative suggestion I've heard that's serious enough to merit consideration.
...Why?
Two mains reasons:
1) To discourage others from doing the same thing
2) To ensure that the victim feels there was a sufficient level of "justice" to avoid vigilantism
No, he didn't. He harmed no one, thus a jail sentence is unjust.
Since he was doing this at scale for profit I think we're well beyond community service here, what would you recommend?
Don't panic, there are still plenty of small and medium size companies that need an in house generalist.
And even more bluntly put, if all your jobs suck, perhaps you should consider that the jobs aren't the problem.
Well, there are significant problems with our socio-economic system but that's out of scope for this discussion.
Well, if you only made it to 2nd level you should really spend some time grinding for XP.
No, but apparently they taste like bacon, which is why we hunted them to extinction the first time. Giant bacony Mammoth steaks, mmmmm........
Wait, how is Citibank prejudiced in this matter? They're going to make a fortune either way.
But over time, parts of it slowly sank into the soft marshland underneath.
But the fourth one stayed up!
One would hope they can walk faster than that.
Probably a lot cheaper as well.
Bring in a portable faraday cage and have him sit in it.
Sounds like reasonable accomodation to me, problem solved.
Why do people insist on having jobs when what they really want are goods and services?
I don't insist on a job, I just happen to need an income in order to buy food and shelter.
I don't see us throwing off the yolk of oppression with violent revolution ever again.
Oh it's still possible, people just have to be pretty desperate before they're willing to risk it. Things aren't nearly bad enough yet, not by a long shot.
To fully replace garbage men with robotics would actually be very hard.
Which is why they won't try to do that right away. Instead they'll automate all the easy parts and leave humans to do the edge cases. That still results in massive layoffs.
Also unnecessary. Just automate every problem humans solve and staffing will decline over time as they'll only be needed for problems never seen before.
Weird, that's usually a behavior I would ascribe to management rather than IT. Most of the IT people I've worked with are practical number crunchers not pie in the sky folks. Engineering training doesn't leave a lot of room for wishy washy thinking.
If CEOs are personally liable for everything a company does you have completely gutted the entire purpose of a corporation which is to insulate the owners and employees from personal liability.
The purpose is to insulate the owners from liability otherwise they would be loathe to invest when their losses could far exceed the potential return. Employees enjoy no such intended insulation. In practice, they have effectively enjoyed protection but that's merely a combination of diffuse responsibility and poor enforcement, not by design.
Given that it would have been ok to own a cannon armed ship capable of executing a letter of marque at the time, I suspect the original definition was broader than the one currently in use.
It's supposed to be changed using the approved process, that is an amendment or a constitutional convention.
Technically the correct solution would have been to pass an amendment authorizing an Air Force. Sadly the law doesn't have to compile clean prior to execution.
The structure of the sentence doesn't specify militia membership as a pre-condition for keeping and bearing arms. It merely implies that a well regulated militia requires arms, that militias are composed of citizens and thus grants citizens the right to bear arms, implying that they thereby would be able to join together into a militia if they so chose.
Basically you only need small arms to start an insurgency, everything else you can take from your opponent.