Do you know the totality of the hazard to you in your present location? If so, how?
Because someone quoted their data, or an analysis of it, to you.
If they knowingly lied and you did not know the true risk, and something adverse occurred, you indeed would have a case against them.
The problem with these scientists is that in this case they did, allegedly, operate like Government. They made political statements, to sway the public's emotions, rather than scientific ones containing the true facts.
Your personal responsibility is only absolute when you possess all of the known facts about your risk profile. If someone else isn't telling you about a risk they are hired to tell you about, then they are taking responsibility away from you, and allowing you to reach conclusions you otherwise would not make. If it's a fact that nobody could know, then you should include that an uncertainty in your assessment. But if someone says "I'm the expert and I say the risk is X", when it's really Y>X, then you're going to use X instead of Y. That's his fault, not yours. If you find out he lied to you before an adverse event occurs, you can take action against him, but it will be limited by the fact that he merely lied and it had no tangible consequences. After an disaster, his problems multiply, and you're the one responsible for holding him accountable.
And if you don't, then you're failing in your responsibility to yourself, to your family, to your neighbors, and to anyone else this putz lied to, especially those who died.
Let the trial happen. See what true evidence both sides have. The facts we get here are tailored by lawyers and "journalists".
Everything bad that ever happened is usually the fault of a number of contributors, none of whom should be let free of responsibility just because of some childish libertarian misapprehension of what personal responsibility means.
No, you don't get sued for doing your job properly, and if you do you stuff it up their dumb asses and, if possible, counter-sue for whatever you consider appropriate: abuse of the courts, harassment by proxy, frivolous litigation, etc.
You can't sue for the possibility of injury. You have to have an injury first. This isn't a suit, it's a charge of criminal negligence. Same deal. No damage = no charge. Now, if Italian law actually had a statute saying what you said, then they could be charged before the Earthquake, if the prosecutor could show the scientists were not reporting their data accurately. Which would be fine, if they had a statute before the fact. They likely did not, or nobody noticed. But once people died, then you had more charges and plenty of evidence and good reason to investigate the situation pertaining before the fact, and to discover that they did indeed lie about the possibilities.
Which they did to avoid being tried for their crimes in Italy. Then they got a horde of Swiss soldiers to protect them from the Italian soldiers. Which, of course, is sufficient.
Um, those people are dead, or lost their houses and possessions. They've already taken the brunt of the responsibility.
If that's because these "scientists" knowingly understated the facts about the risk, then there's no reason to let the scientists get away with a shrug of the shoulders.
My friend (actual friend; I personally have no clones) has accounts for her dead father, her three dogs, several of her birds, and a potholder. At least it looks like a potholder in the picture. And several that are just her, with her own name anagrammed or otherwise manipulated, and photos of her at various ages and in various costumes.
She may have more than 30, total.
And from what I've seen, there's no way she's in the top half of the cloning histogram.
What Facebook has written rules for, and what facebook allows, are two vastly different things.
No no. You're missing it. Facebook thinks it's about spamming your friends. But Facebook users have made it about building fake friends to game the games.
Which has actually made Facebook more popular, because it's not all about spamming your friends.
I'd estimate half of Facebook's "users" are fake accounts used to stat-up gameplay.
They'll do what they did with the rest of the post-9/11 security contracts: sole-source them to Halliburton or its subsidiary, Blackwater, now Xe Systems.
If that happens, TSA mooks will be carrying machine guns, and liable to use them at the slightest provocation.
There were others who voted against it. We don't need to use the fallacy of the excluded middle to switch from one incompetent right-wing retard to another.
Slashdot Mirror
Game over for two punks. Not for the cartel.
For all anyone knows, Anonymous members overlap membership in drug cartels. Sociopaths and psychopaths don't really know boundaries.
Once the tsunami warning was called off, it wasn't.
More people need to mod down uninteresting articles in the Recent section.
Tablets are more amenable to handwriting than desktops, and less to typing than desktops.
Can they bring back handwriting?
Will it be more efficient for input?
Can conversion to typed text be made error-free?
And what of hybrid concepts like Swype?
I've been to Seattle.
The sun hasn't.
I wouldn't flee there except that I then proceed to another destination.
Do you know the totality of the hazard to you in your present location? If so, how?
Because someone quoted their data, or an analysis of it, to you.
If they knowingly lied and you did not know the true risk, and something adverse occurred, you indeed would have a case against them.
The problem with these scientists is that in this case they did, allegedly, operate like Government. They made political statements, to sway the public's emotions, rather than scientific ones containing the true facts.
Your personal responsibility is only absolute when you possess all of the known facts about your risk profile. If someone else isn't telling you about a risk they are hired to tell you about, then they are taking responsibility away from you, and allowing you to reach conclusions you otherwise would not make. If it's a fact that nobody could know, then you should include that an uncertainty in your assessment. But if someone says "I'm the expert and I say the risk is X", when it's really Y>X, then you're going to use X instead of Y. That's his fault, not yours. If you find out he lied to you before an adverse event occurs, you can take action against him, but it will be limited by the fact that he merely lied and it had no tangible consequences. After an disaster, his problems multiply, and you're the one responsible for holding him accountable.
And if you don't, then you're failing in your responsibility to yourself, to your family, to your neighbors, and to anyone else this putz lied to, especially those who died.
Let the trial happen. See what true evidence both sides have. The facts we get here are tailored by lawyers and "journalists".
Everything bad that ever happened is usually the fault of a number of contributors, none of whom should be let free of responsibility just because of some childish libertarian misapprehension of what personal responsibility means.
Then he has evidence that he is innocent and any evidence they present is moot. He can even sue them for false arrest and imprisonment and trial.
No, you don't get sued for doing your job properly, and if you do you stuff it up their dumb asses and, if possible, counter-sue for whatever you consider appropriate: abuse of the courts, harassment by proxy, frivolous litigation, etc.
You can't sue for the possibility of injury. You have to have an injury first. This isn't a suit, it's a charge of criminal negligence. Same deal. No damage = no charge. Now, if Italian law actually had a statute saying what you said, then they could be charged before the Earthquake, if the prosecutor could show the scientists were not reporting their data accurately. Which would be fine, if they had a statute before the fact. They likely did not, or nobody noticed. But once people died, then you had more charges and plenty of evidence and good reason to investigate the situation pertaining before the fact, and to discover that they did indeed lie about the possibilities.
If they did. The trial will figure that out.
Which they did to avoid being tried for their crimes in Italy. Then they got a horde of Swiss soldiers to protect them from the Italian soldiers. Which, of course, is sufficient.
Um, those people are dead, or lost their houses and possessions. They've already taken the brunt of the responsibility.
If that's because these "scientists" knowingly understated the facts about the risk, then there's no reason to let the scientists get away with a shrug of the shoulders.
However, it's Italy. So expect the trial, which should last a day, to take 84 years.
If you're in a position to evaluate danger and you hide facts and issue platitudes, then you're certainly unethical, and possibly criminal.
I say try them and see how the facts work.
your denial and evasion are noted
It's not for you.
It's for people who actually see the sun sometimes.
My friend (actual friend; I personally have no clones) has accounts for her dead father, her three dogs, several of her birds, and a potholder. At least it looks like a potholder in the picture. And several that are just her, with her own name anagrammed or otherwise manipulated, and photos of her at various ages and in various costumes.
She may have more than 30, total.
And from what I've seen, there's no way she's in the top half of the cloning histogram.
What Facebook has written rules for, and what facebook allows, are two vastly different things.
Your twitter stream is about to come with embedded commercial tweets, too.
No no. You're missing it. Facebook thinks it's about spamming your friends. But Facebook users have made it about building fake friends to game the games.
Which has actually made Facebook more popular, because it's not all about spamming your friends.
I'd estimate half of Facebook's "users" are fake accounts used to stat-up gameplay.
Facebook wasn't Google. Everyone was on MySapce. Nobody really knew Facebook existed for a couple of years.
Google+ is Facebook++, and Google wallpapered the world with announcing it was open.
Okay, it was open. It was also void of elemental human interaction, and the forced-looking posting on it isn't creating a critical mass.
The API might help. If they can get some dwellers into some applets. Then people will go there to be, not just to see if it's woke up yet.
Add a game, and it might gamechange the cybersphere. But, better still, promise to keep the SEOtards out, and I'll buy land in it.
Actually, count me unimpressed. Googling for mAh numbers shows that Evolta comes in third behind Eneloop and Energizer rechargeables.
They'll do what they did with the rest of the post-9/11 security contracts: sole-source them to Halliburton or its subsidiary, Blackwater, now Xe Systems.
If that happens, TSA mooks will be carrying machine guns, and liable to use them at the slightest provocation.
Like Mica cares.
There were others who voted against it. We don't need to use the fallacy of the excluded middle to switch from one incompetent right-wing retard to another.
Perhaps we should trust him more than most people on this topic
Perhaps we should fire the incompetent son of a bitch instead.
If it's the latter, that will no doubt be revealed in his defense. If he doesn't parlay it into a big settlement.