And there's a shortage of companies that still has a decent moral compass.
Corporations are frequently legally required to maximize profitability. So it's no surprise that between maximizing profits and decent morality, profits win.
They don't seem to be terribly afraid of your pea-shooters, either... letting people have guns is apparently less of a threat to power than losing votes due to further restricting them.
Why would they be afraid of guns, when their side has drones, tanks, ICBMs, sonic weapons (these have already been deployed against peaceful protests), smart bombs, a state-of-the-art spying network, sophisticated propaganda systems, etc?
Besides, if you really wanted to hurt the people that control this country, you'd: A. Organize massive labor strikes. I'm talking "Nobody is working in California this week" kind of massive. B. Stop shopping as much as possible. The reason is that the money they use to control everything has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is from the pockets of the rest of us.
An example of the privileges rich people have: Millionaire CEO George Anderson got drunk and on his drive home hit and killed a 60-year-old woman out celebrating her birthday. His legal penalty: a misdemeanor conviction, 15 days in jail and a $350 fine. If he had instead been a poor black man, he would have been locked up for 15 years and been required to pay $15,000, as well as having a felony conviction on his record which would pretty much mean he'd never be able to get a job.
Cuban airplane bound for Kim Jong's land Downed in a market-driven US friend Scarred old pilot knows he's doing all right 'til he's caught by capitalists just around midnight.
Brown sugar! How come you smell so good? Brown sugar! Just like a missile should.
So she's a democratically elected politician. What's your point? Politicians *never* lead any major changes, and are frequently changing policies in reflection of a change in the desires of the electorate that happened 5-10 years earlier.
What probably happened was that the authorities were offered $10,000 each in exchange for the $34 million contract and "we don't need to test these, they're proven to work".
Good evening. Here is the news for dogs. No dogs were involved in an accident on the M1 today when a lorry carrying high-octane fuel was in collision with a bollard. That's a bollard and not a dog. A spokesman for dogs said he was glad no dogs were involved. The Minister of Technology today met the three Russian leaders to discuss a £4 million airliner deal. None of them lay in their crates, chased their own tails, or ate any of the nice raw beef yum, yum. That's the end of the news, now our program for dogs continues with part three of 'A Tale of Two Cities', specially adapted for dogs by Joey.
These stats are relatively useless when making comparisons between murder rates among races, since they don't take into account the actual population size of various races.
Many white people are scared of being killed by a black person, making significant changes in personal behavior, such as trying to avoid contact with black people. But in fact, they're equally likely to be killed by a white person. Because I'm looking at the entire population of white people and black people, that's a different question than "If I'm looking at a white person and a black person, who's most likely to kill me?"
If by "tolerant of other religions" means "forcing other religious groups to pay a poll tax" then I guess that's true.
Meanwhile, in most of Europe, the Christians were busy killing anyone who disagreed with them, sometimes with spectacular methods like burning at the stake. Yes, paying a tax was far more religiously tolerant than their contemporaries.
If you read the numbers, it must be pretty close to equal: 49% of murder victims are white, 49% of murder victims are black, and the remaining 2% are of other racial backgrounds. Among murderers, 51% are black, 46% are white, and the remaining 3% are of other racial backgrounds.There were about 13,500 murders the year that was collected, so some quick math suggests that there were about 250 more white people killed by black people than the other way around.
That's not to say that murder is OK, but it's hardly a situation in which black people are murdering white people left and right while white people are just innocent victims. In addition, in a very large percentage of murders the victim is a member of the murderer's family, and another significant number are at least acquainted with each other. Another important fact is that for women, the person most likely to kill them is their boyfriend or husband.
The State withheld evidence that Trayvon Martin was dealing and using drugs, dealing illegal firearms, and was in possession of an illegal firearm. And that Trayvon Martin was into fighting and beating people up and had punched someone in the nose earlier that month. And that he had assaulted a public bus driver and the police showed up but the driver was told to continue his route and not press charges.
Trayvon Martin is not on trial here. "The victim was a really bad guy" is not a legal defense to manslaughter. If I plan for and then kill a pimp or drug dealer or gang leader, I am still guilty of murder. Martin owning an illegal firearm is totally irrelevant, because he did not have it with him that night. Martin's history of dealing or using drugs is also totally irrelevant, because he was not high nor carrying drugs that night.
All George Zimmerman knew when he went to follow Martin was "Scary guy walking through my neighborhood." The only real issues in the case was whether or not Martin attacked Zimmerman, and if so whether Zimmerman reasonably believed his life was in danger.
they are just asking to get an acquittal or an overturn on appeal
What would be really disconcerting: What if they're trying to screw up the case? I mean, they weren't exactly enthusiastic about even arresting or trying Zimmerman in the first place.
Remember "national security letters" that were created as part of the "USA Patriot Act"? These were the special kind of fake warrants that were never approved by any judge, but any person or organization who got one wasn't allowed to tell anyone about, including a court of law (preventing anyone from saying "Hey, Fourth Amendment anyone?"). That would explain everything: why FISA didn't stop it, why the companies are cooperating with the NSA, and why they aren't including references to such things in their privacy policies.
Bless you, former senator Russ Feingold, for having the guts to stand up for the Constitution when the entire rest of the Senate ignored it.
Rates have never been lower, and congress has never bee sic more corruptible.
The "never been" is definitely an exaggeration. Ever hear of the term "railroaded", as in "That bill was railroaded through Congress"? That comes from the 19th century, when railroad executives would show up in the capital with suitcases full of cash, invite each congressman and senator and the president to come pay them a visit, each left happy, and the bill that just happened to be favorable to the railroad in question passed with no questions asked.
Slashdot Mirror
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
In undeveloped countries, don't drink the water. In developed countries, don't breathe the air.
It would not be surprising if they are forced by a court eventually to close these prisons because of valley fever.
It would not be surprising, because it's already happened.
And there's a shortage of companies that still has a decent moral compass.
Corporations are frequently legally required to maximize profitability. So it's no surprise that between maximizing profits and decent morality, profits win.
They don't seem to be terribly afraid of your pea-shooters, either... letting people have guns is apparently less of a threat to power than losing votes due to further restricting them.
Why would they be afraid of guns, when their side has drones, tanks, ICBMs, sonic weapons (these have already been deployed against peaceful protests), smart bombs, a state-of-the-art spying network, sophisticated propaganda systems, etc?
Besides, if you really wanted to hurt the people that control this country, you'd:
A. Organize massive labor strikes. I'm talking "Nobody is working in California this week" kind of massive.
B. Stop shopping as much as possible.
The reason is that the money they use to control everything has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is from the pockets of the rest of us.
And then there's this argument: Rights aren't real if they can be taken away from you arbitrarily for no crime whatsoever.
George Carlin rightfully references Japanese-American internment as proof that rights in America are a fiction.
Well, Valarie Solanas proposed one possible solution when she wrote the SCUM Manifesto.
An example of the privileges rich people have: Millionaire CEO George Anderson got drunk and on his drive home hit and killed a 60-year-old woman out celebrating her birthday. His legal penalty: a misdemeanor conviction, 15 days in jail and a $350 fine. If he had instead been a poor black man, he would have been locked up for 15 years and been required to pay $15,000, as well as having a felony conviction on his record which would pretty much mean he'd never be able to get a job.
Cuban airplane bound for Kim Jong's land
Downed in a market-driven US friend
Scarred old pilot knows he's doing all right
'til he's caught by capitalists just around midnight.
Brown sugar! How come you smell so good?
Brown sugar! Just like a missile should.
"By downloading this software, you agree that you will gawk while I unzip, touch, head, and fsck some tail ..."
So she's a democratically elected politician. What's your point? Politicians *never* lead any major changes, and are frequently changing policies in reflection of a change in the desires of the electorate that happened 5-10 years earlier.
The Scots must be lunatics!
So did the authorities actually test them?
What probably happened was that the authorities were offered $10,000 each in exchange for the $34 million contract and "we don't need to test these, they're proven to work".
Good evening. Here is the news for dogs. No dogs were involved in an accident on the M1 today when a lorry carrying high-octane fuel was in collision with a bollard. That's a bollard and not a dog. A spokesman for dogs said he was glad no dogs were involved. The Minister of Technology today met the three Russian leaders to discuss a £4 million airliner deal. None of them lay in their crates, chased their own tails, or ate any of the nice raw beef yum, yum. That's the end of the news, now our program for dogs continues with part three of 'A Tale of Two Cities', specially adapted for dogs by Joey.
These stats are relatively useless when making comparisons between murder rates among races, since they don't take into account the actual population size of various races.
Many white people are scared of being killed by a black person, making significant changes in personal behavior, such as trying to avoid contact with black people. But in fact, they're equally likely to be killed by a white person. Because I'm looking at the entire population of white people and black people, that's a different question than "If I'm looking at a white person and a black person, who's most likely to kill me?"
If by "tolerant of other religions" means "forcing other religious groups to pay a poll tax" then I guess that's true.
Meanwhile, in most of Europe, the Christians were busy killing anyone who disagreed with them, sometimes with spectacular methods like burning at the stake. Yes, paying a tax was far more religiously tolerant than their contemporaries.
The majority of murders are carried out with hands and feet.
Not even close: FBI stats on weapons used in murders
For those too lazy to follow the link, in an average year about 14000 people are killed, about 9750 with firearms and 4250 with anything else.
Actual statistics
If you read the numbers, it must be pretty close to equal: 49% of murder victims are white, 49% of murder victims are black, and the remaining 2% are of other racial backgrounds. Among murderers, 51% are black, 46% are white, and the remaining 3% are of other racial backgrounds.There were about 13,500 murders the year that was collected, so some quick math suggests that there were about 250 more white people killed by black people than the other way around.
That's not to say that murder is OK, but it's hardly a situation in which black people are murdering white people left and right while white people are just innocent victims. In addition, in a very large percentage of murders the victim is a member of the murderer's family, and another significant number are at least acquainted with each other. Another important fact is that for women, the person most likely to kill them is their boyfriend or husband.
The State withheld evidence that Trayvon Martin was dealing and using drugs, dealing illegal firearms, and was in possession of an illegal firearm. And that Trayvon Martin was into fighting and beating people up and had punched someone in the nose earlier that month. And that he had assaulted a public bus driver and the police showed up but the driver was told to continue his route and not press charges.
Trayvon Martin is not on trial here. "The victim was a really bad guy" is not a legal defense to manslaughter. If I plan for and then kill a pimp or drug dealer or gang leader, I am still guilty of murder. Martin owning an illegal firearm is totally irrelevant, because he did not have it with him that night. Martin's history of dealing or using drugs is also totally irrelevant, because he was not high nor carrying drugs that night.
All George Zimmerman knew when he went to follow Martin was "Scary guy walking through my neighborhood." The only real issues in the case was whether or not Martin attacked Zimmerman, and if so whether Zimmerman reasonably believed his life was in danger.
they are just asking to get an acquittal or an overturn on appeal
What would be really disconcerting: What if they're trying to screw up the case? I mean, they weren't exactly enthusiastic about even arresting or trying Zimmerman in the first place.
Remember "national security letters" that were created as part of the "USA Patriot Act"? These were the special kind of fake warrants that were never approved by any judge, but any person or organization who got one wasn't allowed to tell anyone about, including a court of law (preventing anyone from saying "Hey, Fourth Amendment anyone?"). That would explain everything: why FISA didn't stop it, why the companies are cooperating with the NSA, and why they aren't including references to such things in their privacy policies.
Bless you, former senator Russ Feingold, for having the guts to stand up for the Constitution when the entire rest of the Senate ignored it.
This new learning amazes me! Tell me again how sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes.
Rates have never been lower, and congress has never bee sic more corruptible.
The "never been" is definitely an exaggeration. Ever hear of the term "railroaded", as in "That bill was railroaded through Congress"? That comes from the 19th century, when railroad executives would show up in the capital with suitcases full of cash, invite each congressman and senator and the president to come pay them a visit, each left happy, and the bill that just happened to be favorable to the railroad in question passed with no questions asked.
The only convictions corporations have are the ones that show up on their criminal record.
I don't believe in gravity, so I do not care how hard I'll hit the pavement when I jump off this building.