Homicide is murder in the second degree in the following cases:
1. When perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another person and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual [emphasis mine]; or
2. When perpetrated by a person engaged in the commission of any felony other than the unlawful acts set out in Section 1, subsection B, of this act.
Could that be related to the fact that protestors in China tend to be viewed...disfavorably by their government? As in "we'll bill your family for the bullet."
Could that "low consumption" be at all related to geographical factors? A large portion of the United States is located in places where air conditioning is necessary; Germany, less so.
Because most people don't understand chemistry. Fearmongers spread that vaccines contained mercury even though it was in the form of the compound thimerosal which breaks down to ethylmercury in the body. Neither thimerosal or ethylmercury are one of the harmful mercury compunds like methylmercury, which is an organic compound that is formed by organisms combing mercury with carbon, or elemental mercury which is also toxic. However, good luck convincing the average person about the difference between ethylmercury and methylmercury.
Your post suggests that methylmercury differs from ethylmercury by being an organic compound, combining mercury with carbon; that is, that ethylmercury is not an organic compound, that it doesn't combine mercury with carbon. Would you like to clarify that, or do you have a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry?
"‘It’s the wild colour scheme that freaks me out,’ said Zaphod, whose love affair with the ship had lasted almost three minutes into the flight. 'Every time you try and operate these weird black controls that are labeled in black on a black background, a little black light lights up in black to let you know you’ve done it.’"
If someone eats a hamburger with asbestos sprinkled on it for flavor, then that's their fault, they should have scanned all their foodstuffs with asbestos detectors.
No such hamburger has ever existed. We already have all the protection we need against purely imaginary threats.
Cut-down powdered milk with melamine liberally added for artificially high apparent protein levels in order to meet contract standards.
Non-imaginary threat. Now discuss.
Wasn't that already illegal? Yet the Chinese--people beyond US jurisdiction (and California's jurisdiction, despite what they seem to think)--did it anyway, yes?
If this is about foreign tampering with our elections, how do you expect to gain jurisdiction over foreigners physically located in a foreign country that appears to officially support the actions in question? (Note: the same question could be asked of our own CIA.)
Note that supreme court judges are different from regular judges in how their interpretations are made and how they are applied. For one, AFAIK, they do not hear experts, they are the experts.
You are more correct than you realize.
When SCOTUS is sitting in appellate jurisdiction--as is nearly always the case--it's not there to hear the facts of the case. Facts are developed and judged at the trial level. Appellate courts don't judge facts, they judge law: was the evidence properly admitted/suppressed under the Rules of Evidence and relevant caselaw? Were there procedural errors in the handling of the case? Is there a constitutional issue making a statute invalid, or making an interpretation invalid? Was a statute used in a manner contrary to previous use without a good reason for the divergence from established jurisprudence?
The appellate court judges are experts on the law; it's not up to them to decide the accuracy and weight of the facts, just to decide whether the trial court followed the established law in getting to the result it reached. If you read most appellate court decisions, they rarely change the outcome of the trial court outright, but rather remand the case to the lower court with instructions to hold further proceedings "consistent with this ruling." That is, "y'all messed up on these points, go try again and get those bits right this time." It's not unheard of for the trial court to have new proceedings, make the procedural changes required by the higher court, and still reach the same result.
On a specific condition, he very well might; even as specialists, doctors need to have a wide breadth of knowledge.
This is true of a lot of fields: somebody with a personal interest in a very narrow field and the motivation to teach himself everything about that narrow subject can very easily know that subject better than someone with extensive formal education covering a much wider field of study.
I'm not familiar with your chicken case, but in Wickard v. Filburn, the High Court held that wheat that didn't cross property lines, let alone state lines, affected interstate commerce, and was therefore subject to federal regulation. Seriously--there was a quota on how much wheat a farmer could grow; a farmer grew his quota for market, and an additional amount for his own personal use. The Court held that his personal crop reduced his demand for wheat on the open market, thus affecting interstate commerce, and bringing it within the sphere of federal control.
For solid employees, anyway. Poaching generally requires a company to make a better offer; this sounds like it'll let good employees know when they're underpaid and get them an offer closer to what they're worth.
Less of a good deal for employers, of course, and deadwood will continue to be paid what they're worth (or not) as well.
I've been completely blackballed throughout entire corporations just because of the brand of mouse I chose to buy, or the fact I refuse to use Facebook.
Oh bullshit. No corporation will give a shit about what brand of mouse you use unless you are a flaming asshat about it or somehow manage to violate their corporate IT rules.
When I worked at Dell, our director made me get rid of my IBM Model M.
It's always struck me as odd that people think quotes are some kind of evidence. Anyway, here are a few for you:
Pay a little closer attention. My quote was from a Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, an opinion that was affirmed by the Supreme Court. In other words, mine represents the official policy of the judiciary. Yours weren't
As Mark Twain would have put it, it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.
Most of those filing single or jointly who make enough to qualify for Federal Income Tax payments use commercial software to MAXIMIZE their deductions, which is perfectly legal and a wise thing to do. That isn't tax dodging, it is tax avoidance. Only stupid people pay more taxes than they have to.
"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."
--Judge Learned Hand, Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465 (1935)
"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."
--Judge Learned Hand, Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465 (1935)
Exactly. The insurer can't sue directly because it doesn't have a relationship with Apple (the term of art is "privity"); the insured does have a relationship as a customer. Thus, the insured has to be a plaintiff. This is a good policy--it limits who can sue you. Similarly, subrogation moves liability to the party that created the cause of action instead of the insurer, which is a good thing because it provides incentive for parties to not do things that might cause a suit...like creating dangerous products (as alleged in this case).
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily. In the state in which I practice law (Oklahoma), murder 2 has no intent requirement:
21 O.S. 701.8:
Homicide is murder in the second degree in the following cases:
1. When perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another person and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual [emphasis mine]; or
2. When perpetrated by a person engaged in the commission of any felony other than the unlawful acts set out in Section 1, subsection B, of this act.
... In China there are zero protests....
Could that be related to the fact that protestors in China tend to be viewed...disfavorably by their government? As in "we'll bill your family for the bullet."
Could that "low consumption" be at all related to geographical factors? A large portion of the United States is located in places where air conditioning is necessary; Germany, less so.
Because most people don't understand chemistry. Fearmongers spread that vaccines contained mercury even though it was in the form of the compound thimerosal which breaks down to ethylmercury in the body. Neither thimerosal or ethylmercury are one of the harmful mercury compunds like methylmercury, which is an organic compound that is formed by organisms combing mercury with carbon, or elemental mercury which is also toxic. However, good luck convincing the average person about the difference between ethylmercury and methylmercury.
Your post suggests that methylmercury differs from ethylmercury by being an organic compound, combining mercury with carbon; that is, that ethylmercury is not an organic compound, that it doesn't combine mercury with carbon. Would you like to clarify that, or do you have a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry?
"‘It’s the wild colour scheme that freaks me out,’ said Zaphod, whose love affair with the ship had lasted almost three minutes into the flight. 'Every time you try and operate these weird black controls that are labeled in black on a black background, a little black light lights up in black to let you know you’ve done it.’"
Cut-down powdered milk with melamine liberally added for artificially high apparent protein levels in order to meet contract standards.
Non-imaginary threat. Now discuss.
Wasn't that already illegal? Yet the Chinese--people beyond US jurisdiction (and California's jurisdiction, despite what they seem to think)--did it anyway, yes?
If this is about foreign tampering with our elections, how do you expect to gain jurisdiction over foreigners physically located in a foreign country that appears to officially support the actions in question? (Note: the same question could be asked of our own CIA.)
I'm familiar with at least two satellite providers, so unless you're in some very rugged terrain, your "only one ISP" claim is false on its face.
Note that supreme court judges are different from regular judges in how their interpretations are made and how they are applied. For one, AFAIK, they do not hear experts, they are the experts.
You are more correct than you realize.
When SCOTUS is sitting in appellate jurisdiction--as is nearly always the case--it's not there to hear the facts of the case. Facts are developed and judged at the trial level. Appellate courts don't judge facts, they judge law: was the evidence properly admitted/suppressed under the Rules of Evidence and relevant caselaw? Were there procedural errors in the handling of the case? Is there a constitutional issue making a statute invalid, or making an interpretation invalid? Was a statute used in a manner contrary to previous use without a good reason for the divergence from established jurisprudence?
The appellate court judges are experts on the law; it's not up to them to decide the accuracy and weight of the facts, just to decide whether the trial court followed the established law in getting to the result it reached. If you read most appellate court decisions, they rarely change the outcome of the trial court outright, but rather remand the case to the lower court with instructions to hold further proceedings "consistent with this ruling." That is, "y'all messed up on these points, go try again and get those bits right this time." It's not unheard of for the trial court to have new proceedings, make the procedural changes required by the higher court, and still reach the same result.
There are still plenty of us that are of the mind that the existing law gives the FCC the right to enforce it.
His argument was grounded in the First Amendment. No mere statute can override the Constitution.
On a specific condition, he very well might; even as specialists, doctors need to have a wide breadth of knowledge.
This is true of a lot of fields: somebody with a personal interest in a very narrow field and the motivation to teach himself everything about that narrow subject can very easily know that subject better than someone with extensive formal education covering a much wider field of study.
...I'll use the money to start my own doctor-removing technology!
With hookers! And blackjack!
See Wickard v. Filburn, as I mentioned upthread.
I'm not familiar with your chicken case, but in Wickard v. Filburn, the High Court held that wheat that didn't cross property lines, let alone state lines, affected interstate commerce, and was therefore subject to federal regulation. Seriously--there was a quota on how much wheat a farmer could grow; a farmer grew his quota for market, and an additional amount for his own personal use. The Court held that his personal crop reduced his demand for wheat on the open market, thus affecting interstate commerce, and bringing it within the sphere of federal control.
It's all been downhill since then. Thanks, FDR!
"My country right or wrong" is a terrible and ignorant motto.
No, it really isn't...if you give the complete quote:
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right, if wrong, to be put right."
Amazing how that second half changes things.
To conflate it all is disingenuous.
I don't see anything being conflated at all.
Under U.S. law, anyway, "asylee" is not synonymous with "refugee;" it's a subset of refugee, with different legal procedures and consequences. See https://www.uscis.gov/humanita... , http://www.alllaw.com/articles... , https://www.dhs.gov/immigratio... , https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... , and--if you want the statute-- https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... .
For solid employees, anyway. Poaching generally requires a company to make a better offer; this sounds like it'll let good employees know when they're underpaid and get them an offer closer to what they're worth.
Less of a good deal for employers, of course, and deadwood will continue to be paid what they're worth (or not) as well.
At 5%, across a 30-year mortgage, it'll end up costing over $19k. But keep telling yourself how it's "practically free!"
$10k, on a 30-year note at 5%, is $54/mo, so your savings looks to be about $5-15/mo...if there's no maintenance cost.
This is a giveaway to the politically-connected solar industry, crony-capitalism "greenwashing" at its worst.
The move underscores how rooftop solar, once a luxury reserved for wealthy, green-leaning homeowners, is becoming a mainstream energy source
So mainstream, we're making it mandatory!
I've been completely blackballed throughout entire corporations just because of the brand of mouse I chose to buy, or the fact I refuse to use Facebook.
Oh bullshit. No corporation will give a shit about what brand of mouse you use unless you are a flaming asshat about it or somehow manage to violate their corporate IT rules.
When I worked at Dell, our director made me get rid of my IBM Model M.
It's always struck me as odd that people think quotes are some kind of evidence. Anyway, here are a few for you:
Pay a little closer attention. My quote was from a Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, an opinion that was affirmed by the Supreme Court. In other words, mine represents the official policy of the judiciary. Yours weren't
As Mark Twain would have put it, it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.
Most of those filing single or jointly who make enough to qualify for Federal Income Tax payments use commercial software to MAXIMIZE their deductions, which is perfectly legal and a wise thing to do. That isn't tax dodging, it is tax avoidance. Only stupid people pay more taxes than they have to.
"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."
--Judge Learned Hand, Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465 (1935)
Monica only came to light because of rape accusations from Juanita Broaderick and Gennifer Flowers...allegations Clinton has not denied.
"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."
--Judge Learned Hand, Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465 (1935)
Exactly. The insurer can't sue directly because it doesn't have a relationship with Apple (the term of art is "privity"); the insured does have a relationship as a customer. Thus, the insured has to be a plaintiff. This is a good policy--it limits who can sue you. Similarly, subrogation moves liability to the party that created the cause of action instead of the insurer, which is a good thing because it provides incentive for parties to not do things that might cause a suit...like creating dangerous products (as alleged in this case).