Try a real experiment: List government entities with actual power, such as chief executives and legislative bodies. Count how many are controlled by Democrats. Count how many are controlled by Republicans. Then try to tell me that the Right has no power in the US.
Though, why did she expect that the company would keep her when she was actually damaging the company's image whether or not it is true. Companies are always companies; especially when they are big (e.g. corporation)...
Because it's clearly illegal to fire someone because they file a lawsuit against the company.
Sexual harassment also includes making a hostile work environment. It's typically hard to prove, but it's part of the law. Catcalling can be part of a hostile work environment, and therefore can be sexual harassment.
Both were required to hand over passcodes. In one case, it had been ten months since the defendant had used the passcode, and the defendant claimed to have forgotten it. In another, the defendant handed over a passcode, which the police claimed did not work, and the judge had no reason to believe the defendant might have forgotten the code.
The person in question was not convicted, but rather found in contempt of court. That the judge has a much better grasp of the law doesn't mean the judge can't make mistakes. That's the whole reason we have appellate courts.
You can set up an iPhone 5S or later to allow ten tries at the passcode before it wipes the AES-256 key and renders the contents of the phone completely unreadable. You can't do it fast, since there's lockouts of increasing length.
The difference is that I don't have to help the police find a pipe. They can get permission to tear my place apart, but not to compel me to tell them where to look. The comparable thing would be requiring me to hand my phone over to the police. Instead, the defendant is ordered to divulge information, and that's arguably being a witness against himself in a criminal case. It's clear that a suspect can be compelled to hand over a safe key, but whether a suspect can be compelled to hand over a safe combination is, I believe, a lot iffier.
There's no problem with unlicensed doctors or unlicensed lawyers. There are things they are not allowed to do. Similarly, an unlicensed engineer in Oregon is not allowed to do certain things. There are reasons why licensing exists in all three cases, but it doesn't affect the fact that a guy with an engineering degree working in an engineering job that does not require licensing may reasonably be called an engineer.
Publishing someone false and derogatory about someone has always been legally actionable in the US. You can legally think of me as whatever heinous sort of creature you like, but if you publish an opinion that is false and harmful to me you can get sued, regardless of what you think.
I'd say that GP would be fine with the court doing something different if the parents asked for something different. Courts do not and should not come up with solutions to things that are not their concern.
There's a difference between saying a particular sect is evil and should go away and saying that all other religions are evil and the proponents thereof should convert or die.
That said, I have a very low opinion of anyone who'd go for a religious crusade.
They didn't convict him on that, so the allegations should have no effect on legal proceedings. If they'd convicted him of that, I'd find the sentence reasonable.
I'm aware of 1775, and that the Revolution would have failed if it hadn't been for regular troops.
However, did you know that the average soldier now carries a rifle, not a smoothbore musket? It's even capable of multiple shots, and actually doesn't need a ramrod. Artillery is now guns that fire explosive shells, and it's even effective beyond line of sight. Since that time, people have designed heavy guns capable of firing lots and lots of bullets really fast. We call them "machine guns". And don't let me get started on what's replaced horses. You'll never believe what's in the sky besides birds, either.
In less obvious features, troop commanders can talk to each other without being in the same place. Without having to go through the musket drill, it's possible to train troops to operate in ways other than standing in lines and firing at the enemy. Things have changed since 1775.
I don't have a good way to solve the problem. Parties have to have a way of selecting good candidates, and that's not really compatible with popular selection.
And tyranny of the majority is a good thing... because?
Tyranny of the minority is better? Almost three million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. Moreover, the election is decided by swing states, which means we have a tyranny of a few states.
Under a popular vote system, candidates would go to a handful of big cities in California and on the East Coast and call it a day.
We do have popular vote for governor, senators, and some other offices in Minnesota. If what you said were true, you'd think such candidates would stick to the Twin Cities Metro Area and Duluth, but that doesn't happen. They try to appeal to rural Minnesota, and show up in more rural locations.
The "United States of America" is the name of a country. The President is chosen by a specified process, which could certainly be popular vote.
The purpose of the electoral college is to give slave states a disproportionate amount of influence on who is elected President. Alternately, you could look at the appropriate Federalist paper, which gave reasons for it, which would have meant that the EC stomped Trump into the floor. It does not give each state equal weight.
If we voted based on popular vote, candidates would try to appeal to people overall, since the big population concentrations wouldn't determine the election. Under the current system, candidates only visit possible swing states, and that's not an improvement.
Closed primaries are the way to go. When one candidate has a lock on the party nomination, people of his party are likely to cross the line in an open primary and vote for the worst of the opposite party candidates. This is, overall, bad. It's better if people who more or less believe in the party select the party's nominee.
Superdelegates are there to stop candidates like Trump and McGovern. I still have painful memories of 1972.
Sanders would have been viciously attacked as a soshulist the moment he clinched the nomination. He would not have won.
The fact is that Clinton didn't lose by much, and her poll numbers were hit by Comey's talk about emails at the last minute. This was a loss, not a landslide.
Why blame Clinton? Why not blame the Republicans who got him a majority of the delegates, and got him the nomination? Clinton had a good shot at the election, and she's eminently qualified. Why shouldn't she try? Blame the Trump voters, who apparently want to blame anyone else for their decisions.
Sanders was probably less electable, being a self-described socialist. His ratings were higher because the Republicans hadn't started attacking him yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Try a real experiment: List government entities with actual power, such as chief executives and legislative bodies. Count how many are controlled by Democrats. Count how many are controlled by Republicans. Then try to tell me that the Right has no power in the US.
You clearly don't know the liberals I know. In fact, I question whether you actually know any that physically exist.
Because it's clearly illegal to fire someone because they file a lawsuit against the company.
If the woman is stuck in a workplace with cat-callers, there's power on the cat-caller's side.
Sexual harassment also includes making a hostile work environment. It's typically hard to prove, but it's part of the law. Catcalling can be part of a hostile work environment, and therefore can be sexual harassment.
Search warrants can be challenged, and therefore the admissibility of the evidence from the unreasonable search and information stemming from that.
Both were required to hand over passcodes. In one case, it had been ten months since the defendant had used the passcode, and the defendant claimed to have forgotten it. In another, the defendant handed over a passcode, which the police claimed did not work, and the judge had no reason to believe the defendant might have forgotten the code.
AFAIK, that hasn't been settled in US jurisprudence.
The person in question was not convicted, but rather found in contempt of court. That the judge has a much better grasp of the law doesn't mean the judge can't make mistakes. That's the whole reason we have appellate courts.
You can set up an iPhone 5S or later to allow ten tries at the passcode before it wipes the AES-256 key and renders the contents of the phone completely unreadable. You can't do it fast, since there's lockouts of increasing length.
Having that set is not violating the law.
The difference is that I don't have to help the police find a pipe. They can get permission to tear my place apart, but not to compel me to tell them where to look. The comparable thing would be requiring me to hand my phone over to the police. Instead, the defendant is ordered to divulge information, and that's arguably being a witness against himself in a criminal case. It's clear that a suspect can be compelled to hand over a safe key, but whether a suspect can be compelled to hand over a safe combination is, I believe, a lot iffier.
There's no problem with unlicensed doctors or unlicensed lawyers. There are things they are not allowed to do. Similarly, an unlicensed engineer in Oregon is not allowed to do certain things. There are reasons why licensing exists in all three cases, but it doesn't affect the fact that a guy with an engineering degree working in an engineering job that does not require licensing may reasonably be called an engineer.
Publishing someone false and derogatory about someone has always been legally actionable in the US. You can legally think of me as whatever heinous sort of creature you like, but if you publish an opinion that is false and harmful to me you can get sued, regardless of what you think.
I'd say that GP would be fine with the court doing something different if the parents asked for something different. Courts do not and should not come up with solutions to things that are not their concern.
There's a difference between saying a particular sect is evil and should go away and saying that all other religions are evil and the proponents thereof should convert or die.
That said, I have a very low opinion of anyone who'd go for a religious crusade.
FTFY.
They didn't convict him on that, so the allegations should have no effect on legal proceedings. If they'd convicted him of that, I'd find the sentence reasonable.
Or, for that matter, three days of jail time? That's three days the prisoner isn't getting back.
In other words, women have to use the women's room, and men have to use the men's room?
I'm aware of 1775, and that the Revolution would have failed if it hadn't been for regular troops.
However, did you know that the average soldier now carries a rifle, not a smoothbore musket? It's even capable of multiple shots, and actually doesn't need a ramrod. Artillery is now guns that fire explosive shells, and it's even effective beyond line of sight. Since that time, people have designed heavy guns capable of firing lots and lots of bullets really fast. We call them "machine guns". And don't let me get started on what's replaced horses. You'll never believe what's in the sky besides birds, either.
In less obvious features, troop commanders can talk to each other without being in the same place. Without having to go through the musket drill, it's possible to train troops to operate in ways other than standing in lines and firing at the enemy. Things have changed since 1775.
I don't have a good way to solve the problem. Parties have to have a way of selecting good candidates, and that's not really compatible with popular selection.
Tyranny of the minority is better? Almost three million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. Moreover, the election is decided by swing states, which means we have a tyranny of a few states.
We do have popular vote for governor, senators, and some other offices in Minnesota. If what you said were true, you'd think such candidates would stick to the Twin Cities Metro Area and Duluth, but that doesn't happen. They try to appeal to rural Minnesota, and show up in more rural locations.
Mostly wrong.
The "United States of America" is the name of a country. The President is chosen by a specified process, which could certainly be popular vote.
The purpose of the electoral college is to give slave states a disproportionate amount of influence on who is elected President. Alternately, you could look at the appropriate Federalist paper, which gave reasons for it, which would have meant that the EC stomped Trump into the floor. It does not give each state equal weight.
If we voted based on popular vote, candidates would try to appeal to people overall, since the big population concentrations wouldn't determine the election. Under the current system, candidates only visit possible swing states, and that's not an improvement.
Closed primaries are the way to go. When one candidate has a lock on the party nomination, people of his party are likely to cross the line in an open primary and vote for the worst of the opposite party candidates. This is, overall, bad. It's better if people who more or less believe in the party select the party's nominee.
Superdelegates are there to stop candidates like Trump and McGovern. I still have painful memories of 1972.
Sanders would have been viciously attacked as a soshulist the moment he clinched the nomination. He would not have won.
The fact is that Clinton didn't lose by much, and her poll numbers were hit by Comey's talk about emails at the last minute. This was a loss, not a landslide.
Why blame Clinton? Why not blame the Republicans who got him a majority of the delegates, and got him the nomination? Clinton had a good shot at the election, and she's eminently qualified. Why shouldn't she try? Blame the Trump voters, who apparently want to blame anyone else for their decisions.
Sanders was probably less electable, being a self-described socialist. His ratings were higher because the Republicans hadn't started attacking him yet.