When the government becomes a corporation it's called fascism. The government's (economic) job is to create the rules of trade (ie: "The market") in a way that spreads the benefits of said trade to society as a whole, ideally everyone is "Free" to use the "Market". Having said that, international "cap and trade" is the only "free market" answer to the tragedy of the commons.
Nothing happens about the list because no laws were broken. What you have is a list of government policies you personally disagree with. No matter who you vote for there will always be government policies that you find distasteful. Democratic nations do not throw political opponents in jail for enacting such policy, they simply vote them out of office and start bitching about the new guy.
Haven't RTFA, but if he did break a specific law then all that needs to happen is someone (say a political opponent) makes a formal complaint to the police. However making a false police report for political gain can also land a politician in jail, whereas twisting a random incident into a front page scandal is what their shills are paid to do.
Disclaimer: Non-American, never heard of Christie, I could not point to NJ on a map without some searching. AFAIC a random Slashdot article does not prove his guilt or innocence.
Funny how our everyday language separates life from the rest of the universe, when all evidence points to it being inseparable. Perhaps that would change if we all took Sagan's POV and thought of life as the mechanism by which the universe that observes itself.
Also from the Earth's history we might assume liquid water is required for single-celled critters while O2 is required to make the cologene (sic) to bind them into multicellular critters. It's said that Europa has an ocean and volcanic vents, it's also said the ocean is oxygenated by radiation and subduction of the ice crust. If there are multicellular critters in Europa's ocean it's likely the evidence will have been thrown onto the surface by ice volcanos. As you say, it's just a question of finding it, but we have narrowed the search space significantly simply by concentrating on "life as we know it".
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
The first time I heard this dilemma it was posed by a bible basher attempting to recruit me into his church. In that version the individual is your own child. The point is that God would flip the switch and sacrifice his son to save everyone else whereas a mere human would normally save their child. Why an omnipotent God could not break the rules and save both the individual and the group was left unexplained.
Disclaimer: Grandad to three. The instinct to protect your child can overcome the instinct to defend yourself, sacrificing a bunch of strangers to save your own child is a no-brainer for most parents.
The Aussie constitution recognises that requirement.. The last time the government was sacked for failing to pass a budget was in the mid 70's, there's a slim chance the current government will be sacked due to the political gridlock on the carbon tax.
Disclaimer: I'm old enough to remember the Whitlam sacking, he lost the subsequent election because he stopped talking about the issue causing the gridlock and squandered his campaign time complaining about "the umpire's decision".
I'd rather have fewer criminal cases to prosecute in the first place
Here in Oz they are seen as a deterrent, the police themselves will tell you. They can't make a drunk act responsibly but they can intervene faster in the case of a drunken brawl. the people they deter are sober trouble-makers, bag-snatchers, etc, these people simply shift there operations away from the cameras.
I'm intrigued, what sort of "data" would conclusively show that cameras do/don't reduce crime? How would you account for other factors such as unemployment?
$100M in revenue is not "rich" in the corporate world, using average corporate ROI it equates to $5-10M in net profit. FF companies receive a hell of a lot more than $10M in government subsidies.
Precisely, a economic "market" is a just a set of rules governing transactions. A "free market" is a market with no restrictions on who joins, other than they obey the rules. The tea party interpretation of "free market" as "a market free from regulation" is an oxymoron, nice enough people I'm sure, but probably best not to give them the keys to the treasury (again).
you can't ask in usa what data a company has on you
Of course not, that would be a breach of corporate privacy. The real privacy problem is that people are attempting to define things as private that they have already made public, also the fact that it would be difficult to function in the modern world without giving certain information to corporations and the government, eg: try buying a house or an expensive car in cash and see what happens.
If you really think that's what is happening with a government apology then I can't be bothered trying to educate you. Step away from the computer screen and go talk to the victims of such abuse, as I said elsewhere it's very important to them (and the health of society) that society formally acknowledges they were treated badly. To do otherwise is universally seen by victims as tacit approval of the notion that "they deserved it".
Obviously anyone who thinks US politics is "immutable" was born yesterday. From what I've seen of US politics the politicians are more beholden to their own "causes" rather than the stated policies of their party. It appears to me that US politicians "cross the isle" far more often than they do here in Oz. Disagreements within the party are aired more publicly in the US, in Oz they hide their "disunity" behind close doors in the caucus meetings.
The only place a Westminster party normally offers it's members this much voting freedom is when it's a moral question such as abortion, members are then allowed a "conscience" vote. (ie: the party is deliberately unwilling to define morality for it's members). Normally however they work out policy in private and agree to support it in public (even if they disagree with it personally). A member who does not tow the party line in public and chamber is at first public corrected by the party leader and then thrown out by party vote if the behaviour continues. The member does not lose his seat in parliament he loses the support of his party and becomes an independent sitting on the "cross-benches".
A high tolerance for "disloyalty" in a political party makes it difficult for a party to form a clear and consistent policy on anything. Enforcing party loyalty means the public is less certain what individual party members think but more certain about how they will vote in the house.
Slashdot Mirror
...what the others are here for, I have no idea. - W H Auden.
Getting a chopper to the top of Everest is more of a challenge than climbing it by foot. AFAIK it's never been done, ( air is too thin ).
A sober person knows better than to get behind the wheel drunk, but a drunk person may no longer have that inhibition.
Irrelevant - It was the sober person who made the choice to get drunk to the point where they no longer care.
When the government becomes a corporation it's called fascism. The government's (economic) job is to create the rules of trade (ie: "The market") in a way that spreads the benefits of said trade to society as a whole, ideally everyone is "Free" to use the "Market". Having said that, international "cap and trade" is the only "free market" answer to the tragedy of the commons.
Nothing happens about the list because no laws were broken. What you have is a list of government policies you personally disagree with. No matter who you vote for there will always be government policies that you find distasteful. Democratic nations do not throw political opponents in jail for enacting such policy, they simply vote them out of office and start bitching about the new guy.
Haven't RTFA, but if he did break a specific law then all that needs to happen is someone (say a political opponent) makes a formal complaint to the police. However making a false police report for political gain can also land a politician in jail, whereas twisting a random incident into a front page scandal is what their shills are paid to do.
Disclaimer: Non-American, never heard of Christie, I could not point to NJ on a map without some searching. AFAIC a random Slashdot article does not prove his guilt or innocence.
but evolutionarily, we also have to understand that as a self-serving position.
Understanding human behaviour won't make it go away.
Vicarious redemption via human sacrifice is utterly immoral.
the universe can host life
Funny how our everyday language separates life from the rest of the universe, when all evidence points to it being inseparable. Perhaps that would change if we all took Sagan's POV and thought of life as the mechanism by which the universe that observes itself.
Also from the Earth's history we might assume liquid water is required for single-celled critters while O2 is required to make the cologene (sic) to bind them into multicellular critters. It's said that Europa has an ocean and volcanic vents, it's also said the ocean is oxygenated by radiation and subduction of the ice crust. If there are multicellular critters in Europa's ocean it's likely the evidence will have been thrown onto the surface by ice volcanos. As you say, it's just a question of finding it, but we have narrowed the search space significantly simply by concentrating on "life as we know it".
My question though is at what point those molecules become alive?
Abiogenisis is just chemistry, the point where it becomes alive depends on your definition of "alive".
Multiple versions are not a problem on windows, assuming the user is competent with a DOS prompt.
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
The first time I heard this dilemma it was posed by a bible basher attempting to recruit me into his church. In that version the individual is your own child. The point is that God would flip the switch and sacrifice his son to save everyone else whereas a mere human would normally save their child. Why an omnipotent God could not break the rules and save both the individual and the group was left unexplained.
Disclaimer: Grandad to three. The instinct to protect your child can overcome the instinct to defend yourself, sacrificing a bunch of strangers to save your own child is a no-brainer for most parents.
Select targets? Really? Wait until the system realizes ALL humans are targets.
No need to wait, we already have minefields.
Obama got one thing right (paraphrased); "Size is irrelevant, it's what you do with it that counts".
A budget must be passed.
The Aussie constitution recognises that requirement.. The last time the government was sacked for failing to pass a budget was in the mid 70's, there's a slim chance the current government will be sacked due to the political gridlock on the carbon tax.
Disclaimer: I'm old enough to remember the Whitlam sacking, he lost the subsequent election because he stopped talking about the issue causing the gridlock and squandered his campaign time complaining about "the umpire's decision".
Commercial banks do not just "print more money" when it's stolen.
I'd rather have fewer criminal cases to prosecute in the first place
Here in Oz they are seen as a deterrent, the police themselves will tell you. They can't make a drunk act responsibly but they can intervene faster in the case of a drunken brawl. the people they deter are sober trouble-makers, bag-snatchers, etc, these people simply shift there operations away from the cameras.
I'm intrigued, what sort of "data" would conclusively show that cameras do/don't reduce crime? How would you account for other factors such as unemployment?
$100M in revenue is not "rich" in the corporate world, using average corporate ROI it equates to $5-10M in net profit. FF companies receive a hell of a lot more than $10M in government subsidies.
Precisely, a economic "market" is a just a set of rules governing transactions. A "free market" is a market with no restrictions on who joins, other than they obey the rules. The tea party interpretation of "free market" as "a market free from regulation" is an oxymoron, nice enough people I'm sure, but probably best not to give them the keys to the treasury (again).
Murdoch and Soros are the same person.
you can't ask in usa what data a company has on you
Of course not, that would be a breach of corporate privacy. The real privacy problem is that people are attempting to define things as private that they have already made public, also the fact that it would be difficult to function in the modern world without giving certain information to corporations and the government, eg: try buying a house or an expensive car in cash and see what happens.
"Apple Genius" - same deal, different task.
If you really think that's what is happening with a government apology then I can't be bothered trying to educate you. Step away from the computer screen and go talk to the victims of such abuse, as I said elsewhere it's very important to them (and the health of society) that society formally acknowledges they were treated badly. To do otherwise is universally seen by victims as tacit approval of the notion that "they deserved it".
Obviously anyone who thinks US politics is "immutable" was born yesterday. From what I've seen of US politics the politicians are more beholden to their own "causes" rather than the stated policies of their party. It appears to me that US politicians "cross the isle" far more often than they do here in Oz. Disagreements within the party are aired more publicly in the US, in Oz they hide their "disunity" behind close doors in the caucus meetings.
The only place a Westminster party normally offers it's members this much voting freedom is when it's a moral question such as abortion, members are then allowed a "conscience" vote. (ie: the party is deliberately unwilling to define morality for it's members). Normally however they work out policy in private and agree to support it in public (even if they disagree with it personally). A member who does not tow the party line in public and chamber is at first public corrected by the party leader and then thrown out by party vote if the behaviour continues. The member does not lose his seat in parliament he loses the support of his party and becomes an independent sitting on the "cross-benches".
A high tolerance for "disloyalty" in a political party makes it difficult for a party to form a clear and consistent policy on anything. Enforcing party loyalty means the public is less certain what individual party members think but more certain about how they will vote in the house.