'Tis a funny game, acting blameless with the blood of millions on our collective hands. Americans are quite good at it. Blameless for the situation of the black bottom class, how dare they be bottom class. Blameless for the middle east, how dare they be mad at us for 50 years of murder.
Maybe if the US would follow some of the morals it claims to follow through the Bible when it's politicians pander to those groups, we wouldn't have ever seen a 9/11, because we never would have murdered anyone.
I guess it's easier to say "It's not my problem" than to accept responsibility. It's the American way, after all.
The defendant makes video games and is thus evil and in league with the homosexuals, and if you rule against my client I'll appeal, saying you're attacking my religious beliefs!!!
You've got a couple scary flawed assumptions in your model.
First, who the HELL spends 100 dollars on gas per WEEK?! That's 5200/yr!
Second, energy still costs money, even if it's not gasoline. You may never have paid a 1000 dollar electric bill, but I have. If you're paying 100 dollars a week for gasoline, you soon will be seeing pretty incredible hydro bills too.
Third, It's silly to look 10 years into the future for your vehicle payback. Pretty much everyone looks at the maximum debt repayment period, and the maximum powertrain waranty period. That would put your fancy car in the realm of "outlandishly expensive" having totalled only $26000 in gas savings against the purchase price.
You're arguing relatively minor semantics while the thrust of my statement remains sound. Given all the data you've given, all the data I've seen (check out 2006 as well), it's very safe to say that any major increases will be seen before September, and most of the massive increases will be cut back to some degree. Happens every year. It's not as perfectly seasonal as it is in gasoline, but it's still true.
I'd argue otherwise. Those sound like mean words, but simply mentioning the "shitty rest of your life" implies the bully intended for her target to continue living.
Further, I still strongly believe that just as the responsibility for committing an act of theft or murder lies soley with the person who decides to do them, not in the people whose actions "built the murderer" or "built the thief", the responsibility for commiting suicide similarly lies soley with the person who decides to do it, not with the people who "built the suicide".
It's not a straw man, it's rather important. By saying "You can't ruin someone's social life!", you're giving authority to the government to do much more than simply protect against mean people. You're giving them the mandate to define social a social life, to define a set of behaviours which constitutes an attempted breach of that social life, and to define a set of rules determining what constitutes criminal maliciousness with respect to that attempted breach of a social life. All of this is incredibly dangerous. The best court decisions are taking freedom away from the government, taking power to define social aspects, and giving them a mandate to enforce elements of that.
The woman IS blameless. Sure, she did some terrible things, but she didn't kill this girl, she did that herself. We wouldn't be sitting here having this discussion if the target robbed a bank, or murdered the bully's child, or went on a shooting rampage, or turned to drugs. For some reason, despite the fact that we won't hold the bully responsible for any of those other terrible, stupid, selfish decisions by the target, we WILL hold the bully responsible when the target commits suicide. The decision to punish the bully when the target chooses one action but no others is arbitrary and capricious.
Again, you're in such a rush to prove yourself right that you're missing the relevance. The spike I said would happen happened. It happened in 2006, too. Check the data. End of August. It always happens. The specific point where they decide to back it off doesn't matter. In this case, if you're right and the spike is moving around, we're probably seeing it right now. A price increase of 10c in a week definitely seems like a spike to me.
We ALWAYS see a spike. Every single year. The price backs off and doesn't touch that spot again.
And no one chooses to be a target. I mean, no one forces a bully to bully them.
Legal repercussions aside, this bitch is now a social outcast anyway. She lost her house, her advertising business has gone to shit, and her husband was fired from his job at Coldwell Banker and now works at a Burlington Coat Factory. If they end up in a cardboard box in an alley somewhere, that would be just fine with me.
If you decide to outlaw the bullying behaviour of this mother, you ought to ban the bullying of her by the public at large. I'd say it's much better NOT to have the government trying to regulate our social lives.
Bad things happen, but that doesn't mean we need men with guns to fix it for us.
It's amazing the injustice you'll find in your own back yard. My sister was a victim of a similar psychological warfare campaign by the mother of a boy her age. I've had to deal with something a step worse, institutionalised bullying, where some bully's parents were big shots, so the bully gets off scott free, and I get punished in the name of keeping the peace.
Very different. If it's her emotions, then it's her choice to commit suicide. If you inject a chemical that induces thoughts of suicide in otherwise healthy individuals, then it may not have been her choice to commit suicide.
If you weren't in such a rush to prove me wrong, you'd look at your data and see that I'm right.
Prices in 2007 peaked during the summer months, just as I said.
If you look at prices in 2006, 2005, 2004, and earlier, you'll see the same characteristic curve year after year. I know, because I was there watching the prices, day after day.
What, exactly, made you believe that 500/yr meant gallons? I've used dollars as my units until now, and if I'm canadian I use litres to measure the volume of diesel. Your post is a complete non-sequitur. If I travelled to Winnipeg, 700 kilometers away, every weekend, I'd save tens of thousands of dollars with a prius, but I don't do that, so it's not relevant to the discussion at hand.
My last trip to the pumps for 2 weeks worth of gasoline cost me 60 dollars, not 120. If my fuel was costing me that much, I'd move, or carpool, or do something to drag down a ridiculously outrageous fuel budget.
Also, you obviously don't know how gas prices work. You haven't done your homework.
We're not going to see 1.75 a litre this winter unless we see prices hit 2.00 this summer(In which case, there are more economical fuel sources available). I've been watching the price of gas for 10 years, and EVERY year, gas prices peak during the summer and bottom out during the winter. This means that if my truck is economical at the moment with 1.41 gasoline, it's going to remain economical until next summer, at which point a re-assessment may be neccessary. There's no reason to believe we're going to see a deviation from that long-held pattern.
Sorry, it cuts my gas use TO a third. my numbers are correct (notice I use 500/yr in my calculations), but my expression of the fraction was wrong.
My source for insurance numbers is www.mpi.mb.ca which is the provincially run auto insurance monopoly. I recalled what I pay for my truck from memory, but used the calculator to determine the insurance rates for the prius with a 200 dollar deductable and 1,000,000 dollar liability limit.
The biggest bully in any schoolyard ever pales in comparison to the awesome power wielded by the state. A bully has strength, and may even get a gun in the worst schools in America. The government has enough guns, bombs, and men to kill you and everyone you have ever loved, and everyone THEY have ever loved, down the line quite a ways.
That being the case, the awesome power of the state must be used fairly and consistently if it's going to be used ethically(and I'd argue that the justice system has no raison d'etre if it isn't based on ethical and just principles itself). Letting factors outside a bully's control dictate the punishment for a set of actions is unjust. Every single person here has stories about the bully when they were growing up. Many even have stories of adults bullying them. Many even worse than what this woman did in this case. Why should all these bullies get off scott free because we didn't decide to kill ourselves, while this woman gets hit with trumped up charges because her target killed herself?
What if the target instead decided to shoot up the school, or rob a bank, or take up drugs? Would the person in this case be punished for bullying then? I'd think not.
The fact that we're talking about punishing a bully only when the target makes the selfish, stupid choice of ending his or her own life, but we won't punish the bully when the target makes other selfish stupid choices speaks to me of the inconsistency inherent with trying to rule based on consequences rather than on actions taken by an alleged offender.
You need to take a holistic approach to budgeting.
My truck is more economical to drive than a Prius. The reasons are simple arithmatic.
We'll ignore initial capital costs for this comparison. This puts the Prius at a massive advantage, because my truck, a Ford F-250 extended cab longbox turbodiesel, cost me a quarter of what a new prius costs.
1. Insurance. My truck costs me $900 a year to insure. A new prius will cost $2300 a year to insure.
2. Relatively fuel efficient. It's a turbodiesel, so I get above 20MPG. This puts my annual commuting fuel budget at about $1500/yr. We'll go with the higher number for this comparison.
The prius will cut my gas use by a third. This means I'll be getting 1000 back in gasoline savings compared to my F-250.
The Prius simply fails.
The yearly cost to operate the F-250 at current gas prices is 900+1500=2400 dollars. The yearly cost to operate the prius at current gas prices is 2300+500=2800 dollars.
Your tone suggests you're approaching this in a too moralistic way. Driving a big or small vehicle doesn't make you a better or worse person. Driving a smaller vehicle doesn't neccessarily help matters anyway. What really matters at the end of the day is trying to keep the damage to your wallet to a minimum.
German is utterly insane, but it's neccessary to know a bit, because they're excellent engineers, and sometimes you'll need to understand a deuschegagenstandstarkaussprechen(Long, hard to say german word).
I recall a story that came out of East Germany. The communists were famous for being pedantic, where they'd reject requisitions if it wasn't written properly. It took four bureaucrats to figure out a safe, proper way to ask for staples.
What I'm suggesting isn't ignoring abuse. What I'm suggesting is a consistent standard for offenders based on their participation in an event, rather than the consequences.
If we decide to rob a bank, or kill someone, or commit vandalism, our bullies won't be prosecuted in that case. If we take our hardship and turn it into something positive, changing the world for the better, our bullies won't get any awards. Why should they face prosecution in this one case, where we decide to kill ourselves? It's entirely inconsistent punishment based on something outside of your own control.
I guess the difference between you and I is I've seen this before. My sister pressed charges against a teenage boy for sexual harassment after he bit her breast.
The mother decided to make it her life's mission to destroy my sister's reputation.
Judging from this thread, the reason the police couldn't, or just wouldn't do anything is that my sister didn't decide to commit suicide.
Great message. The only way my sister can see justice against a hateful bitch is if she kills herself.
Also market forces! If you want people to give their real name and address, give a reason for them to want to!
And if you're going to go with the market forces theme, you should realise that forcing us to give correct information under threat of government force is contrary to the idea of a free market.
Slashdot Mirror
I want it to show the damage to enemy units based on the body parts of their battlemechs.
'Tis a funny game, acting blameless with the blood of millions on our collective hands. Americans are quite good at it. Blameless for the situation of the black bottom class, how dare they be bottom class. Blameless for the middle east, how dare they be mad at us for 50 years of murder.
Maybe if the US would follow some of the morals it claims to follow through the Bible when it's politicians pander to those groups, we wouldn't have ever seen a 9/11, because we never would have murdered anyone.
I guess it's easier to say "It's not my problem" than to accept responsibility. It's the American way, after all.
OBJECTION!!!
The defendant makes video games and is thus evil and in league with the homosexuals, and if you rule against my client I'll appeal, saying you're attacking my religious beliefs!!!
wait until he has no rules by which to follow.
Who cares if there's rules or not? It's not like he followed them.
You've got a couple scary flawed assumptions in your model.
First, who the HELL spends 100 dollars on gas per WEEK?! That's 5200/yr!
Second, energy still costs money, even if it's not gasoline. You may never have paid a 1000 dollar electric bill, but I have. If you're paying 100 dollars a week for gasoline, you soon will be seeing pretty incredible hydro bills too.
Third, It's silly to look 10 years into the future for your vehicle payback. Pretty much everyone looks at the maximum debt repayment period, and the maximum powertrain waranty period. That would put your fancy car in the realm of "outlandishly expensive" having totalled only $26000 in gas savings against the purchase price.
You're arguing relatively minor semantics while the thrust of my statement remains sound. Given all the data you've given, all the data I've seen (check out 2006 as well), it's very safe to say that any major increases will be seen before September, and most of the massive increases will be cut back to some degree. Happens every year. It's not as perfectly seasonal as it is in gasoline, but it's still true.
I'd argue otherwise. Those sound like mean words, but simply mentioning the "shitty rest of your life" implies the bully intended for her target to continue living.
Further, I still strongly believe that just as the responsibility for committing an act of theft or murder lies soley with the person who decides to do them, not in the people whose actions "built the murderer" or "built the thief", the responsibility for commiting suicide similarly lies soley with the person who decides to do it, not with the people who "built the suicide".
It's not a straw man, it's rather important. By saying "You can't ruin someone's social life!", you're giving authority to the government to do much more than simply protect against mean people. You're giving them the mandate to define social a social life, to define a set of behaviours which constitutes an attempted breach of that social life, and to define a set of rules determining what constitutes criminal maliciousness with respect to that attempted breach of a social life. All of this is incredibly dangerous. The best court decisions are taking freedom away from the government, taking power to define social aspects, and giving them a mandate to enforce elements of that.
The woman IS blameless. Sure, she did some terrible things, but she didn't kill this girl, she did that herself. We wouldn't be sitting here having this discussion if the target robbed a bank, or murdered the bully's child, or went on a shooting rampage, or turned to drugs. For some reason, despite the fact that we won't hold the bully responsible for any of those other terrible, stupid, selfish decisions by the target, we WILL hold the bully responsible when the target commits suicide. The decision to punish the bully when the target chooses one action but no others is arbitrary and capricious.
Again, you're in such a rush to prove yourself right that you're missing the relevance. The spike I said would happen happened. It happened in 2006, too. Check the data. End of August. It always happens. The specific point where they decide to back it off doesn't matter. In this case, if you're right and the spike is moving around, we're probably seeing it right now. A price increase of 10c in a week definitely seems like a spike to me.
We ALWAYS see a spike. Every single year. The price backs off and doesn't touch that spot again.
Why do you believe the government ought to be in the business of regulating people's social lives?
Thankfully, the constitution doesn't grant the government that power.
And no one chooses to be a target. I mean, no one forces a bully to bully them.
Legal repercussions aside, this bitch is now a social outcast anyway. She lost her house, her advertising business has gone to shit, and her husband was fired from his job at Coldwell Banker and now works at a Burlington Coat Factory. If they end up in a cardboard box in an alley somewhere, that would be just fine with me.
If you decide to outlaw the bullying behaviour of this mother, you ought to ban the bullying of her by the public at large. I'd say it's much better NOT to have the government trying to regulate our social lives.
Bad things happen, but that doesn't mean we need men with guns to fix it for us.
It's amazing the injustice you'll find in your own back yard. My sister was a victim of a similar psychological warfare campaign by the mother of a boy her age. I've had to deal with something a step worse, institutionalised bullying, where some bully's parents were big shots, so the bully gets off scott free, and I get punished in the name of keeping the peace.
Very different. If it's her emotions, then it's her choice to commit suicide. If you inject a chemical that induces thoughts of suicide in otherwise healthy individuals, then it may not have been her choice to commit suicide.
If you weren't in such a rush to prove me wrong, you'd look at your data and see that I'm right.
Prices in 2007 peaked during the summer months, just as I said.
If you look at prices in 2006, 2005, 2004, and earlier, you'll see the same characteristic curve year after year. I know, because I was there watching the prices, day after day.
What, exactly, made you believe that 500/yr meant gallons? I've used dollars as my units until now, and if I'm canadian I use litres to measure the volume of diesel. Your post is a complete non-sequitur. If I travelled to Winnipeg, 700 kilometers away, every weekend, I'd save tens of thousands of dollars with a prius, but I don't do that, so it's not relevant to the discussion at hand.
My last trip to the pumps for 2 weeks worth of gasoline cost me 60 dollars, not 120. If my fuel was costing me that much, I'd move, or carpool, or do something to drag down a ridiculously outrageous fuel budget.
Also, you obviously don't know how gas prices work. You haven't done your homework.
We're not going to see 1.75 a litre this winter unless we see prices hit 2.00 this summer(In which case, there are more economical fuel sources available). I've been watching the price of gas for 10 years, and EVERY year, gas prices peak during the summer and bottom out during the winter. This means that if my truck is economical at the moment with 1.41 gasoline, it's going to remain economical until next summer, at which point a re-assessment may be neccessary. There's no reason to believe we're going to see a deviation from that long-held pattern.
All my phones in the past few years have had E911 GPS built in, so they know exactly where I am when I call. Sounds like the right idea, no?
As long as we understand it's not a big truck.
Sorry, it cuts my gas use TO a third. my numbers are correct (notice I use 500/yr in my calculations), but my expression of the fraction was wrong.
My source for insurance numbers is www.mpi.mb.ca which is the provincially run auto insurance monopoly. I recalled what I pay for my truck from memory, but used the calculator to determine the insurance rates for the prius with a 200 dollar deductable and 1,000,000 dollar liability limit.
The biggest bully in any schoolyard ever pales in comparison to the awesome power wielded by the state. A bully has strength, and may even get a gun in the worst schools in America. The government has enough guns, bombs, and men to kill you and everyone you have ever loved, and everyone THEY have ever loved, down the line quite a ways.
That being the case, the awesome power of the state must be used fairly and consistently if it's going to be used ethically(and I'd argue that the justice system has no raison d'etre if it isn't based on ethical and just principles itself). Letting factors outside a bully's control dictate the punishment for a set of actions is unjust. Every single person here has stories about the bully when they were growing up. Many even have stories of adults bullying them. Many even worse than what this woman did in this case. Why should all these bullies get off scott free because we didn't decide to kill ourselves, while this woman gets hit with trumped up charges because her target killed herself?
What if the target instead decided to shoot up the school, or rob a bank, or take up drugs? Would the person in this case be punished for bullying then? I'd think not.
The fact that we're talking about punishing a bully only when the target makes the selfish, stupid choice of ending his or her own life, but we won't punish the bully when the target makes other selfish stupid choices speaks to me of the inconsistency inherent with trying to rule based on consequences rather than on actions taken by an alleged offender.
You need to take a holistic approach to budgeting.
My truck is more economical to drive than a Prius. The reasons are simple arithmatic.
We'll ignore initial capital costs for this comparison. This puts the Prius at a massive advantage, because my truck, a Ford F-250 extended cab longbox turbodiesel, cost me a quarter of what a new prius costs.
1. Insurance. My truck costs me $900 a year to insure. A new prius will cost $2300 a year to insure.
2. Relatively fuel efficient. It's a turbodiesel, so I get above 20MPG. This puts my annual commuting fuel budget at about $1500/yr. We'll go with the higher number for this comparison.
The prius will cut my gas use by a third. This means I'll be getting 1000 back in gasoline savings compared to my F-250.
The Prius simply fails.
The yearly cost to operate the F-250 at current gas prices is 900+1500=2400 dollars. The yearly cost to operate the prius at current gas prices is 2300+500=2800 dollars.
Your tone suggests you're approaching this in a too moralistic way. Driving a big or small vehicle doesn't make you a better or worse person. Driving a smaller vehicle doesn't neccessarily help matters anyway. What really matters at the end of the day is trying to keep the damage to your wallet to a minimum.
German is utterly insane, but it's neccessary to know a bit, because they're excellent engineers, and sometimes you'll need to understand a deuschegagenstandstarkaussprechen(Long, hard to say german word).
I recall a story that came out of East Germany. The communists were famous for being pedantic, where they'd reject requisitions if it wasn't written properly. It took four bureaucrats to figure out a safe, proper way to ask for staples.
Je suis un pizza dans la bibliotech.
12 years of French, and that's the extent of my ability.
What I'm suggesting isn't ignoring abuse. What I'm suggesting is a consistent standard for offenders based on their participation in an event, rather than the consequences.
If we decide to rob a bank, or kill someone, or commit vandalism, our bullies won't be prosecuted in that case. If we take our hardship and turn it into something positive, changing the world for the better, our bullies won't get any awards. Why should they face prosecution in this one case, where we decide to kill ourselves? It's entirely inconsistent punishment based on something outside of your own control.
I guess the difference between you and I is I've seen this before. My sister pressed charges against a teenage boy for sexual harassment after he bit her breast.
The mother decided to make it her life's mission to destroy my sister's reputation.
Judging from this thread, the reason the police couldn't, or just wouldn't do anything is that my sister didn't decide to commit suicide.
Great message. The only way my sister can see justice against a hateful bitch is if she kills herself.
I'll just give a fake name and address.
Also market forces! If you want people to give their real name and address, give a reason for them to want to!
And if you're going to go with the market forces theme, you should realise that forcing us to give correct information under threat of government force is contrary to the idea of a free market.