And by yours those who feel child incest and rape should be legal have the duty to rape and abuse little children. Do you support the rape of little children?
We have no duty to obey unjust laws
It is easy for a "Coward" to say such but it is much more difficult to define such. I gave you a list of logical considerations about how we could make legal judgments. You say that we have no duty to obey unjust laws however you fail to define what an unjust law is.
Let's put a little more thought into this people. If you want to argue against my position at least do so intelligently. Don't just label something as a fundamental human right and pawn it off as truth.
Wearing cloths is NOT a fundamental human right. I would be amazed if you could point out the foundation to that fundamental human right. The problem with rights is that everyone thinks they have more fundamental ones than they really do. I would be surprised if you could define the difference between fundamental human right and a non-fundamental right.
If you like clothes, feel free to wear them. But you have no right to tell someone else that they have to.
Your killin me here hahaha. Umm yes I do have that right. The government has given me that right by making laws.
What you are saying is that some objective human right exists somewhere that states that all people have the right not to wear cloths in public if they wish. That is simply ludicrous. What star is that written on? Government grants rights my friend. The only other granter of rights would be God and He made the first clothing and did so for a purpose.
What will they do next? Arrest anyone who has kids, because they have obviously had sex? If you aren't covered in dirt there, you have obviously had a bath or shower, and were therefore naked, so you might be arrested.
The point isn't that she was naked. The point is she was naked in public so your example doesn't really apply.
Sexuality is a private issue. If you are proud of your body and want to walk around naked stay within your home. Whatever you bring into the public becomes the publics responsibility. This public made laws that made public nudity illegal. Most people in this country would agree with this law.
A lot of chicks flash their tits at bars if the DJ plays Itty Bitty Titties, and show snatch if the DJ plays Pussy Control. They don't get busted
It is fallacious to think just because something has become commonplace it is now ok. The law is clear and it should be enforced or removed. Most people would vote to have this law enforced rather than removed.
Some may feel that laws they do not agree with should be circumvented or ignored but those who would break any law could use that same argument. Crimes such as rape, murder, and incest are also committed by people who do not believe they should be held accountable. What makes these laws different?
Maybe we should only enforce those laws that harm people but who is to define what harm is, the victim or the attacker? A rapist doesn't always feel he is harming his victim. Some actually believe they are helping that person. Giving them what they really want. A murderer many times will rationalize what they have done. If the victim is to define what harm is then what prevents me from saying that it harms to see a nude women in public. Some people still value purity and I do not wish to see nude people in public places. I view it as an attack on my emotional sensibility. Should that be the way of things?
Perhaps we can only enforce physical harm. But that would leave out threats and many forms of emotional abuse. I know you just want to be a hypocrite about our legal system and encourage its downward spiral into irrelevance.
Most people in this nation still feel clothing are a necessity in public and at this time it is the law. If you dislike this law please feel free to lobby for its removal but at this time it is the law and should be enforced.
Lastly, the human body is wonderful and I respect it and it's creator (and I am not talking about the surgeon). The viewing of ones body is an intimate thing that shouldn't be taken for granted. We should respect those who value purity.
Your comment assumes you know the setup the hows and the whys of what they are using. I would like to know how you know all of this.
I know you don't know the setup so how can you say Microsoft isn't the best tool for the job unless you are simply an anti-Microsoft person then of course your rant is nothing more than the same old Rhetoric. I have read allot of the speculation thrown out as if it was fact or had some basis in reality (Which it doesn't) and find it humorous. It's like watching a group people have a conversation on something they do not know anything about. Hey, that's exactly what it is:)
Keep laws off the internet, use technology to fix technology.
Technology isn't the problem. Please explain what the problematic technology is.
The problem is that people are willing to make money off the misery and suffering of others. To combat this you need to hit these people where it hurts and that would be the pocket book. Unless you harm their bottom line they will not care what you do. You could introduce a myriad of new technologies to stop them but there will always be an innovator who finds a way around the technology.
with all of the masking of addresses and such, how are they going to possibly prove who sent what to whom?
That is why you go after the company or site that is being advertised.:) Are they not just as guilty? Do we just go after the hitman or do we also go after the boss that hired him.
I am a Christian and agree with some of what you have said.
"Since there were far more people on the earth during "modern" history than there were in the past, this is hardly a relevant point."
You are correct. This is not a relevant point. Comparing numbers as to who has done the most bad or killed the most people doesn't do any good. All groups have done their fair share of terrible actions and we should all recognize this.
The thing I can say though, about those "Christians" or "professed Christians" that have done those terrible things is; they were not living up to God's standards as revealed to us in the scriptures. Even though their modivation may have been to spread God's kingdom or to live up to God's standards they were not doing these things God's way. Atheists, on the other hand, cannot make such a claim because they have no objective standard. They cannot say that those groups were not living up to best-embodied standard of atheism because atheism has no moral standards. Atheism is a "might makes right" standard of living. You may not agree with me but any other moral standard that an atheist tries to employ into his or her life will be foundationless because of the subjectivity of the religion. It will have meaning for the individual but cannot hold any lasting or universal meaning.
"Replacing one f****d-up, reality-denying philosophy (say, Christianity as it's been practiced traditionally) with another (say, Communism) isn't likely to lead to an improvement in anybody's quality of life."
I do not consider Christianity a "reality-denying philosophy". "How is Christianity a "reality-denying philosophy"? Who's reality does it deny? Yours? If you are an Atheist you believe that evolution is fact and the earth is billions of years old. If you are saying that Christianity denies that reality you would be correct.
I believe that God created the earth in 6 days. This is reality based on my philosophical worldview and based on this your Atheism denies reality but to say this simply shows my bias. It does nothing to further a dialog or prove a point. I am not saying that reality is different for each person but everyone's sense or view of reality may be different. Ones personal views can alter thier view of reality. The true question is, does Christianity deny your personal sense of reality (Personal Beliefs) or reality itself? If it denies reality what examples can be given?
Lastly I would like to ask how Atheism can "lead to an improvement in" someone's "quality of life"? I didn't ask how science could lead to an improvement. I asked how Atheism as a philosophical worldview could.
I could continue to write on this subject but I just do not have any more time for it:)
I hope this post was not viewed as an attack on Atheism or you as a person. I hold the view that Atheism is wrong in its views yet I hold no animosity toward those that hold that view and I apologize if this post came as such.
"Most muslims who have not been turned extreme by extreme circumstances (like having to endure terror and torture by having to live in the Iraq as a shiite under Saddam), will agree that radical islamists have indeed left the path of islam a long time ago."
You may need to do a little more studying.
O YOU WHO BELIEVE! DO NOT TAKE THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS FOR FRIENDS; THEY ARE FRIENDS OF EACH OTHER; AND WHOEVER AMONGST YOU TAKES THEM FOR A FRIEND, THEN SURELY HE IS ONE OF THEM; SURELY ALLAH DOES NOT GUIDE THE UNJUST PEOPLE. (5:49-51)
THEY DESIRE THAT YOU SHOULD DISBELIEVE AS THEY HAVE DISBELIEVED, SO THAT YOU MIGHT BE ALL ALIKE; THEREFORE TAKE NOT FROM AMONG THEM FRIENDS UNTIL THEY FLY THEIR HOMES IN ALLAH'S WAY; BUT IF THEY TURN BACK, THEN SEIZE THEM AND KILL THEM WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE NOT FROM AMONG THEM A FRIEND OR A HELPER. (4:89)
When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them (9:5)
FIGHT THEM: ALLAH WILL PUNISH THEM BY YOUR HANDS AND BRING THEM TO DISGRACE, AND ASSIST YOU AGAINST THEM. (9:14)
FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, NOR FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, OUT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE BOOK [Christians and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION. (9:29)
And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah (8:39)
"the islam is quite peaceful by nature."
Ummm, I don't think so. Islam has a VERY violent past. It continues to be violent and will continue because the Quran encourages violence.
Americanized Islam can be peaceful but that is more a result of our culture, in my opinion, than the religion. Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that all of Islam is violent. I am saying that the religion gravitates to violence because that is what is taught. Many people ignore that aspect of Islam and live in peace with other people however, those that do are not living up to Islam as it is and was intended. To those people I can simply say "Thank You".
Now-a-days you don't need a majority to make a law you just need a judge who is willing to legislate from the bench.
The question about majority rule is, "just because the majority says it is right does that make it right?"
"If IBM has reaped the profits of business operations that wound up poisoning and killing their employees, why should the employees (or their survivors) not sue for compensation?"
This is similar to the last persons reply and so I am not going to go into what I think. Please see my reply to canajin56.
I understand that you want to be for the people who have been injured. It is horrible that these things happen. My opinion simply stated is, just because something horrible happens does not equate to a compensable offense.
"Even if IBM didn't know, they still deserve compensation for harm that IBM exposed them to."
This is where I tend to disagree with people. I believe that people need to take responsibility for there own actions and companies cannot be held responsible for all the worlds' ills. IBM may have had a harmful environment and they may have paid people to enter into that harmful environment. They did not force anyone. Anyone who entered into that environment did so of there own free will and was paid to do so. If IBM didn't force people into a harmful environment and they didn't deceive anyone about working in this environment why should they be held accountable for a decision made by an individual about working in that envirnment?
You seem to believe that companies should be held accountable for not knowing everything however the individual who actually made the decision to place themselves into that environment are not accountable for that decision.
I am sorry but it has not been shown that IBM has made money dishonestly and the employee was paid for the work they performed. You may look back and say they got the raw end of the deal and I may agree with you however, that does not add up to a lawsuit because when it was all said and done the company didn't do anything dishonest and the employees chose to be there.
Was the company reasonably able to know the danger and effects of the chemicals within a given environment?
Were the employee's reasonably able to know the danger and effects of the chemicals within a given environment?
I do not agree with lawsuits against companies because we later find that a given environment wasn't as safe as we once thought. If we suddenly find that some specific type of blue paint causes skin conditions after it has been used for twenty years is it reasonable for the employees of the company that manufactured that paint to sue the company when the company itself wasn't aware and wasn't able to be aware of the risks involved. As time goes on we will continue to discover the hazards we place ourselves in. That will not change! Everything that you do involves risk. Get used to it.
I suppose I would only support this type of action if it can be proven that the company intentionally withheld knowledge from its employees and placed them in harms way with their actions. That in my opinion would be a valid case. Monetary reward should be given in the case of dishonestly or reasonable negligence. I say reasonable because if you neglect to protect your building skylight from burglars jumping or even walking on it, I do not feel you should be responsible because it isn't reasonable.
This country has become far to sue happy.
You can disagree with me if you wish but, please be aware that in a few years simple disagreements may be cause for lawsuits.
oops to late. They already are.
I do not feel sorry for Sharman Networks any longer. At this point I almost hope that the music and movie industry put them out of business. It seems stupid, to me, to ask someone to remove access to sites that may be infringing upon your material all the while fighting against the exact same request from the music and movie industry but hey, what do I know.
"Its Army just a Hollywood production."
That wasn't a Hollywood production. That was CNN and Fox news.
"And just one blockout, knock out the whoole country and knock out his people"
A few states is hardly the whole country and the thought that this knocked out Americans shows that you are speaking more from imagination than reality.
Doing nothing to protect the environment because it hurts the economy (as Dr. Shrub claims) is plain stupid and will backfire eventually.
Are you claiming that the US does nothing to protect the environment?
Here is the problem. Environmentalists are never satisfied with the steps that have been taken. Over the past 20 or more years we have take huge steps to please the environmentalist however if you talk to them the government has done nothing.
You can give me study after study about global warming however the fact remains that no conclusive evidence has been collected to show that the world is in fact warming globally due to carbon dioxide emissions. If you disagree I challenge you to post that evidence. I do not want conjecture or opinion I want facts that prove global warming because of carbon dioxide emissions.
The World goes through cycles. Does anyone remember the mid 70's and the "great threat of global freezing due to carbon dioxide emissions. I find this laughable. When the climate starts to cool again they will be yelling at everyone that another ice age is on the way because of our cars.
I believe in responsible use of our planets resources but I also believe that you don't sacrifice peoples livelihoods. Trees are not more important then the American family or any other family for that mater.
By now you think I am just some angry anti-earth person however, I would support taking steps if a valid issue came up. The problem is that most if not all scientists that bring up these things have some sort of political agenda and when you look at the data they are throwing around it really doesn't add up to what they say it does.
If IBM did something wrong I believe they need to be held accountable however, I also feel that the actions of SCO over the last few months have been detestable and they should be held accountable for their actions as well. It isn't a secret that many people would love to see SCO go under. Their claim to billions from IBM is ridiculous and their tactics when dealing with Linux is repulsive. Of course this is just my opinion so take it as such.
1. If the Red Hat vs. SCO goes to trial before SCO vs. IBM SCO will need to substantiate their claims earlier then they would have wanted giving IBM prep time.
2. Red Hat may or may not be big enough to fight SCO however SCO will burn through money fighting them. This could be the first of several lawsuits brought against SCO because of its recent tactics.
3. SCO is trying to convince Linux users to purchase Unix licenses to protect themselves from lawsuits. This type of blackmail should not be tolerated and could end up hurting companies like Red Hat. It would stand to reason that Red Hat would wish to protect their customers and this lawsuit should create confidence within the Linux market. (Something people have been worried about)
I do not believe anyone has the "RIGHT" to waist my time.
I come home look at my answering machine.
Push Play >
"You have 5 new messages" "Message one"
"Hi you have one a trip for 2.." Delete > "Message Two"
"We calling you because you filled out a form.." Delete > "Message Three"
"Thank you for your interest in product.." Delete > "Message Four"
"Hey Creep73, Just wanted to know if you wanted to watch that movie tonight." "Message Five"
"Congratulations, You have won the right to enroll in our new car givaway contest..." Delete >
--------
These marketers are abusing my answering machine and my phone line. I pay for that line for my use and benifit not theirs. If they want to use my time they should have to pay for it.
I don't fill out forms or enter contests.
I don't want to win that car I just want to be left alone!
Some may call it progress however what is the difference between watching it on my computer and buying it on tape or DVD and watching it later. One of the things I enjoy about a personal lecture is you can see the individual interact with the environment where as in videos and such you are many times left guessing. That is only a personal preference though.
Slashdot Mirror
When I say "Wearing cloths is NOT a fundamental human right" I mean the the act of "not" wearing cloths is NOT a fundamental human right. Thanks,
And by yours those who feel child incest and rape should be legal have the duty to rape and abuse little children. Do you support the rape of little children?
We have no duty to obey unjust laws
It is easy for a "Coward" to say such but it is much more difficult to define such. I gave you a list of logical considerations about how we could make legal judgments. You say that we have no duty to obey unjust laws however you fail to define what an unjust law is.
Let's put a little more thought into this people. If you want to argue against my position at least do so intelligently. Don't just label something as a fundamental human right and pawn it off as truth.
Wearing cloths is NOT a fundamental human right. I would be amazed if you could point out the foundation to that fundamental human right. The problem with rights is that everyone thinks they have more fundamental ones than they really do. I would be surprised if you could define the difference between fundamental human right and a non-fundamental right.
If you like clothes, feel free to wear them. But you have no right to tell someone else that they have to.
Your killin me here hahaha. Umm yes I do have that right. The government has given me that right by making laws.
What you are saying is that some objective human right exists somewhere that states that all people have the right not to wear cloths in public if they wish. That is simply ludicrous. What star is that written on? Government grants rights my friend. The only other granter of rights would be God and He made the first clothing and did so for a purpose.
What will they do next? Arrest anyone who has kids, because they have obviously had sex?
If you aren't covered in dirt there, you have obviously had a bath or shower, and were therefore naked, so you might be arrested.
The point isn't that she was naked. The point is she was naked in public so your example doesn't really apply.
Sexuality is a private issue. If you are proud of your body and want to walk around naked stay within your home. Whatever you bring into the public becomes the publics responsibility. This public made laws that made public nudity illegal. Most people in this country would agree with this law.
A lot of chicks flash their tits at bars if the DJ plays Itty Bitty Titties, and show snatch if the DJ plays Pussy Control. They don't get busted
It is fallacious to think just because something has become commonplace it is now ok. The law is clear and it should be enforced or removed. Most people would vote to have this law enforced rather than removed.
Some may feel that laws they do not agree with should be circumvented or ignored but those who would break any law could use that same argument. Crimes such as rape, murder, and incest are also committed by people who do not believe they should be held accountable. What makes these laws different?
Maybe we should only enforce those laws that harm people but who is to define what harm is, the victim or the attacker? A rapist doesn't always feel he is harming his victim. Some actually believe they are helping that person. Giving them what they really want. A murderer many times will rationalize what they have done. If the victim is to define what harm is then what prevents me from saying that it harms to see a nude women in public. Some people still value purity and I do not wish to see nude people in public places. I view it as an attack on my emotional sensibility. Should that be the way of things?
Perhaps we can only enforce physical harm. But that would leave out threats and many forms of emotional abuse. I know you just want to be a hypocrite about our legal system and encourage its downward spiral into irrelevance.
Most people in this nation still feel clothing are a necessity in public and at this time it is the law. If you dislike this law please feel free to lobby for its removal but at this time it is the law and should be enforced.
Lastly, the human body is wonderful and I respect it and it's creator (and I am not talking about the surgeon). The viewing of ones body is an intimate thing that shouldn't be taken for granted. We should respect those who value purity.
Happy New Year!
Your comment assumes you know the setup the hows and the whys of what they are using. I would like to know how you know all of this.
:)
:)
I know you don't know the setup so how can you say Microsoft isn't the best tool for the job unless you are simply an anti-Microsoft person then of course your rant is nothing more than the same old Rhetoric. I have read allot of the speculation thrown out as if it was fact or had some basis in reality (Which it doesn't) and find it humorous. It's like watching a group people have a conversation on something they do not know anything about. Hey, that's exactly what it is
Thats all I can say at the moment.
Keep laws off the internet, use technology to fix technology.
Technology isn't the problem. Please explain what the problematic technology is.
The problem is that people are willing to make money off the misery and suffering of others. To combat this you need to hit these people where it hurts and that would be the pocket book. Unless you harm their bottom line they will not care what you do. You could introduce a myriad of new technologies to stop them but there will always be an innovator who finds a way around the technology.
with all of the masking of addresses and such, how are they going to possibly prove who sent what to whom?
:) Are they not just as guilty? Do we just go after the hitman or do we also go after the boss that hired him.
That is why you go after the company or site that is being advertised.
I am a Christian and agree with some of what you have said.
:)
"Since there were far more people on the earth during "modern" history than there were in the past, this is hardly a relevant point."
You are correct. This is not a relevant point. Comparing numbers as to who has done the most bad or killed the most people doesn't do any good. All groups have done their fair share of terrible actions and we should all recognize this.
The thing I can say though, about those "Christians" or "professed Christians" that have done those terrible things is; they were not living up to God's standards as revealed to us in the scriptures. Even though their modivation may have been to spread God's kingdom or to live up to God's standards they were not doing these things God's way. Atheists, on the other hand, cannot make such a claim because they have no objective standard. They cannot say that those groups were not living up to best-embodied standard of atheism because atheism has no moral standards. Atheism is a "might makes right" standard of living. You may not agree with me but any other moral standard that an atheist tries to employ into his or her life will be foundationless because of the subjectivity of the religion. It will have meaning for the individual but cannot hold any lasting or universal meaning.
"Replacing one f****d-up, reality-denying philosophy (say, Christianity as it's been practiced traditionally) with another (say, Communism) isn't likely to lead to an improvement in anybody's quality of life."
I do not consider Christianity a "reality-denying philosophy". "How is Christianity a "reality-denying philosophy"? Who's reality does it deny? Yours? If you are an Atheist you believe that evolution is fact and the earth is billions of years old. If you are saying that Christianity denies that reality you would be correct.
I believe that God created the earth in 6 days. This is reality based on my philosophical worldview and based on this your Atheism denies reality but to say this simply shows my bias. It does nothing to further a dialog or prove a point. I am not saying that reality is different for each person but everyone's sense or view of reality may be different. Ones personal views can alter thier view of reality. The true question is, does Christianity deny your personal sense of reality (Personal Beliefs) or reality itself? If it denies reality what examples can be given?
Lastly I would like to ask how Atheism can "lead to an improvement in" someone's "quality of life"? I didn't ask how science could lead to an improvement. I asked how Atheism as a philosophical worldview could.
I could continue to write on this subject but I just do not have any more time for it
I hope this post was not viewed as an attack on Atheism or you as a person. I hold the view that Atheism is wrong in its views yet I hold no animosity toward those that hold that view and I apologize if this post came as such.
Peace be with you
"Most muslims who have not been turned extreme by extreme circumstances (like having to endure terror and torture by having to live in the Iraq as a shiite under Saddam), will agree that radical islamists have indeed left the path of islam a long time ago."
You may need to do a little more studying.
O YOU WHO BELIEVE! DO NOT TAKE THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS FOR FRIENDS; THEY ARE FRIENDS OF EACH OTHER; AND WHOEVER AMONGST YOU TAKES THEM FOR A FRIEND, THEN SURELY HE IS ONE OF THEM; SURELY ALLAH DOES NOT GUIDE THE UNJUST PEOPLE. (5:49-51)
THEY DESIRE THAT YOU SHOULD DISBELIEVE AS THEY HAVE DISBELIEVED, SO THAT YOU MIGHT BE ALL ALIKE; THEREFORE TAKE NOT FROM AMONG THEM FRIENDS UNTIL THEY FLY THEIR HOMES IN ALLAH'S WAY; BUT IF THEY TURN BACK, THEN SEIZE THEM AND KILL THEM WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE NOT FROM AMONG THEM A FRIEND OR A HELPER. (4:89)
When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them (9:5)
FIGHT THEM: ALLAH WILL PUNISH THEM BY YOUR HANDS AND BRING THEM TO DISGRACE, AND ASSIST YOU AGAINST THEM. (9:14)
FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, NOR FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, OUT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE BOOK [Christians and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION. (9:29)
And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah (8:39)
"the islam is quite peaceful by nature."
Ummm, I don't think so. Islam has a VERY violent past. It continues to be violent and will continue because the Quran encourages violence.
Americanized Islam can be peaceful but that is more a result of our culture, in my opinion, than the religion. Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that all of Islam is violent. I am saying that the religion gravitates to violence because that is what is taught. Many people ignore that aspect of Islam and live in peace with other people however, those that do are not living up to Islam as it is and was intended. To those people I can simply say "Thank You".
Peace be with you.
Now-a-days you don't need a majority to make a law you just need a judge who is willing to legislate from the bench. The question about majority rule is, "just because the majority says it is right does that make it right?"
"If IBM has reaped the profits of business operations that wound up poisoning and killing their employees, why should the employees (or their survivors) not sue for compensation?"
This is similar to the last persons reply and so I am not going to go into what I think. Please see my reply to canajin56.
I understand that you want to be for the people who have been injured. It is horrible that these things happen. My opinion simply stated is, just because something horrible happens does not equate to a compensable offense.
"Even if IBM didn't know, they still deserve compensation for harm that IBM exposed them to."
This is where I tend to disagree with people. I believe that people need to take responsibility for there own actions and companies cannot be held responsible for all the worlds' ills. IBM may have had a harmful environment and they may have paid people to enter into that harmful environment. They did not force anyone. Anyone who entered into that environment did so of there own free will and was paid to do so. If IBM didn't force people into a harmful environment and they didn't deceive anyone about working in this environment why should they be held accountable for a decision made by an individual about working in that envirnment?
You seem to believe that companies should be held accountable for not knowing everything however the individual who actually made the decision to place themselves into that environment are not accountable for that decision.
I am sorry but it has not been shown that IBM has made money dishonestly and the employee was paid for the work they performed. You may look back and say they got the raw end of the deal and I may agree with you however, that does not add up to a lawsuit because when it was all said and done the company didn't do anything dishonest and the employees chose to be there.
The questions:
Was the company reasonably able to know the danger and effects of the chemicals within a given environment?
Were the employee's reasonably able to know the danger and effects of the chemicals within a given environment?
I do not agree with lawsuits against companies because we later find that a given environment wasn't as safe as we once thought. If we suddenly find that some specific type of blue paint causes skin conditions after it has been used for twenty years is it reasonable for the employees of the company that manufactured that paint to sue the company when the company itself wasn't aware and wasn't able to be aware of the risks involved. As time goes on we will continue to discover the hazards we place ourselves in. That will not change! Everything that you do involves risk. Get used to it.
I suppose I would only support this type of action if it can be proven that the company intentionally withheld knowledge from its employees and placed them in harms way with their actions. That in my opinion would be a valid case. Monetary reward should be given in the case of dishonestly or reasonable negligence. I say reasonable because if you neglect to protect your building skylight from burglars jumping or even walking on it, I do not feel you should be responsible because it isn't reasonable.
This country has become far to sue happy.
You can disagree with me if you wish but, please be aware that in a few years simple disagreements may be cause for lawsuits.
oops to late. They already are.
the music and movie industry is using?
I do not feel sorry for Sharman Networks any longer. At this point I almost hope that the music and movie industry put them out of business. It seems stupid, to me, to ask someone to remove access to sites that may be infringing upon your material all the while fighting against the exact same request from the music and movie industry but hey, what do I know.
"Its Army just a Hollywood production."
That wasn't a Hollywood production. That was CNN and Fox news.
"And just one blockout, knock out the whoole country and knock out his people"
A few states is hardly the whole country and the thought that this knocked out Americans shows that you are speaking more from imagination than reality.
Doing nothing to protect the environment because it hurts the economy (as Dr. Shrub claims) is plain stupid and will backfire eventually.
Are you claiming that the US does nothing to protect the environment?
Here is the problem. Environmentalists are never satisfied with the steps that have been taken. Over the past 20 or more years we have take huge steps to please the environmentalist however if you talk to them the government has done nothing.
You can give me study after study about global warming however the fact remains that no conclusive evidence has been collected to show that the world is in fact warming globally due to carbon dioxide emissions. If you disagree I challenge you to post that evidence. I do not want conjecture or opinion I want facts that prove global warming because of carbon dioxide emissions.
The World goes through cycles. Does anyone remember the mid 70's and the "great threat of global freezing due to carbon dioxide emissions. I find this laughable. When the climate starts to cool again they will be yelling at everyone that another ice age is on the way because of our cars.
I believe in responsible use of our planets resources but I also believe that you don't sacrifice peoples livelihoods. Trees are not more important then the American family or any other family for that mater.
By now you think I am just some angry anti-earth person however, I would support taking steps if a valid issue came up. The problem is that most if not all scientists that bring up these things have some sort of political agenda and when you look at the data they are throwing around it really doesn't add up to what they say it does.
This is an indication of the lack of confidence they have in the longevity of their company.
Once again the actions of these corporate losers will not effect them because they will squirm their way out of it.
Someone buy them out and stop this nonsense.
If IBM did something wrong I believe they need to be held accountable however, I also feel that the actions of SCO over the last few months have been detestable and they should be held accountable for their actions as well. It isn't a secret that many people would love to see SCO go under. Their claim to billions from IBM is ridiculous and their tactics when dealing with Linux is repulsive. Of course this is just my opinion so take it as such.
I am not saying that SCO is doing the right thing. That is what they are attempting to do though.
1. If the Red Hat vs. SCO goes to trial before SCO vs. IBM SCO will need to substantiate their claims earlier then they would have wanted giving IBM prep time.
2. Red Hat may or may not be big enough to fight SCO however SCO will burn through money fighting them. This could be the first of several lawsuits brought against SCO because of its recent tactics.
3. SCO is trying to convince Linux users to purchase Unix licenses to protect themselves from lawsuits. This type of blackmail should not be tolerated and could end up hurting companies like Red Hat. It would stand to reason that Red Hat would wish to protect their customers and this lawsuit should create confidence within the Linux market. (Something people have been worried about)
I applaud Red Hat.
I do not believe anyone has the "RIGHT" to waist my time.
I come home look at my answering machine.
Push Play >
"You have 5 new messages"
"Message one"
"Hi you have one a trip for 2.."
Delete >
"Message Two"
"We calling you because you filled out a form.."
Delete >
"Message Three"
"Thank you for your interest in product.."
Delete >
"Message Four"
"Hey Creep73, Just wanted to know if you wanted to watch that movie tonight."
"Message Five"
"Congratulations, You have won the right to enroll in our new car givaway contest..."
Delete >
--------
These marketers are abusing my answering machine and my phone line. I pay for that line for my use and benifit not theirs. If they want to use my time they should have to pay for it.
I don't fill out forms or enter contests.
I don't want to win that car I just want to be left alone!
Modern day note passing. I doubt it will help students.
Some may call it progress however what is the difference between watching it on my computer and buying it on tape or DVD and watching it later. One of the things I enjoy about a personal lecture is you can see the individual interact with the environment where as in videos and such you are many times left guessing. That is only a personal preference though.
hahahaha exactly
There is just nothing better than having a coward point out your mistakes for you. :)
Bob needs to give me a few bucks so I can buy myself a good spell checker. 'commercial' hrm