That's different from what you wrote. If I hit someone in the face and he dies, it's not reckless indifference to human life but I did intent to harm him. Therefore, not murder but possibly manslaughter.
The Eggshell Skull Principle applies to criminal cases as well. It has been applied to make "indifference to human life" include any act that results in a forseeable death (not just an intended or reckless one).
Implied malice is proven by acts that involve reckless indifference to human life
That's a tautology. If you kill someone, then you exercised reckless indifference or worse.
Yes, it's different from what I said, but legal definitions are often the opposite of the actual definition. Much like Clinton's "no" with relations to sex was the only legal answer to the question asked, and the opposite of reality, which got a lot of confused Republicans to impeach him. The law is deliberately obtuse and confusing. If it weren't then we wouldn't be commiting 3 felonies a day for them to take out anyone they wanted. You don't have to have an official police state, when the unofficial police state is so efficient.
In case you didn't notice, 3G was a better mobile networking standard than anyone had ever proposed in history. So was HSPA and HSPA+. LVDS is a better signalling method for short-run data buses than anyone has ever proposed in history: PATA couldn't be serialized at 12V swings due to capacitance, and low voltages become susceptible to noise. At some point, we thought every preceding technology was the best: if we had better, we'd have used it.
And the "best" satellite error correction, still being rolled out today, was "invented" in 1960. And 3G is built off of an idea invented by an actress in WWII.
Nothing new is new. Electric cars are "new", but pre-dated internal combustion cars.
Nearly every economic policy/theory has been tried, and all but one failed. You have confidence that your new one will succeed where all others have succeeded. I'm not as confident in your plan.
Everywhere I've lived in the US, if you set out to harm someone, and that harm resulted in a death, that was murder. That's the standard definition. A pre-meditated act of harm with no intent to kill that results in a death is murder. "Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human," There needn't be intended killing, so long as there is malice aforethought (you intended to harm them).
If you don't use the definition I gave, what definition would you use? I just grabbed the first definition (it came from Wikipedia), as all I've seen agree with that.
Do you have an example of that, or just idle speculation? And I've seen worse happen in the US. More than one person has gone to jail for possession when they claim it was blatantly planted by the local government official.
As long as you don't define "freedom" by the number of guns you can own, yes. Both are more free than the USA, so long as you don't make it a habit to deliberately torment others.
On Slashdot, I remember the large number of posts when an adult targeted a child with a known mental illness and harassed her with the intent of causing her harm, and as a result of that successful harm, the child died (suicide). The overwhelming opinion on slashdot is that murder is ok. So long as you set up an elaborate trap with the intention of killing, but don't pull the trigger yourself.
If you think that you should have the right to harass people literally to death, then yes, you might want to stay in the US, one of the few places that's legal. Though I'd argue that it makes it less civilized, not more.
I've voted in every presidential election since 1992, and not once yet for a winning candidate.
You have only one solution. Move. England, Australia, or learn a new language. Let the remainder fight it out. After the collapse, I might come back. Or I might not.
Why do none of your responses have anything to do with the previous post? You want to object because I somehow offended you, but you aren't sure why? Or are you really just that dumb that by the time you click "reply" you remember you are angry, but can't remember why?
Some want a progressive tax for UBI--make the rich pay, and make the system fail when the middle class expands
The expansion of the middle class is irrelevant to UBI. If you had 90% poor and 10% rich, then set up a progressive tax to provide for the UBI, the UBI and tax would be exactly the same with a distrivution of 10% poor, 80% middle class, and 10% rich.
So explain to me how the middle class in that example makes the system fail? There'll be *more* tax income with a large middle class than in the initial case.
The system as I describe is correct, viable, and more stable than anything anyone else has ever proposed in history.
And you wonder why nobody listens to you. You are smarter than everyone else who has ever lived, combined. Or at least that's how some could take your self assessment.
They would be horrified if they knew about the other threats.
Ah, come on, you are 90% of the way there, tell us about the "other threats" and how there are global conspiracies. Finish it off with a rant on gold and "fiat" and you'll have the nutjob trifecta.
There's a reason nobody takes you seriously. Everyone I've seen propose a UBI (including Fair Tax people) couldn't explain what would happen if the UBI was doubled. "It'd be bad" is the most detail I got from anyone. And the Fair Taxers don't even answer the question. They just threaten violence. No really. I've been threatened with violence for simply saying" what if we increased the tax by 10-15% and roll that number into the UBI (the fair taxers call prebate, but it's too low to be a liveable UBI).
And yes, I've talked to many Fair Taxers about using the prebate as UBI to eliminate welfare and medicare and such, but they seem to wretch at the idea.
Many people find this offensive. The idea that the government will give you money, just because you're an adult? The idea that you could live in an apartment with a 6x9 bedroom--half of which is taken up by a twin bed--and a 10x9 sitting room, and no money to afford cable TV or a 54 inch plasma display or an XBox, but can eat and shower and sleep in a bed, all without working a day in your life, horrifies people.
Yeah, that's not far off of "prison". That's why I push for a UBI that includes some extra income. So they can take the bus to the library to better themselves. If they can't do that, prison would be an upgrade, at least it has convenient access to a library and adult education.
Facts prove you wrong. People with a set diet and consistent exercise for many years will keep "regular" weight from, say, puberty to 40, then gain weight from 40+. With no change to food or exercise.
Inability to control your own actions becomes a valid form of disability.
Like alcoholism being listed as a disease? That put it on the protected list in the USA. Discriminating against someone for a disease is a "bad thing".
Oh come on, that's why the troops have been *there* for the past decade. Iraq was always fucked up, America went in to stop some serious badness happening, and spent over 10 years there trying to fix things up.
You mean it wasn't about 9/11 and WMDs? Why were we there before? Because the WMDs we sold Saddam were expiring, and we wanted a new puppet strong enough to fight Iran? I get lost in the ever-changing reasons we give for invading the same places over and over again.
Or are you saying that so long as there's at least one country worse than the USA, that the USA is the best? The logic just doesn't work that well. And as for South America, many Americans run south. How's McAfee doing? Fled the US, then fled his hideaway when he killed his neighbor?
As opposed to the right-wing stance on abortion? It's ok if they are at least 14, and preferably Black and have a mental illness. But we'll call it "execution" rather than "abortion". Feels better that way.
Riddle me this... which country do you think its easier to become a citizen in... The United States or Mexico?
Mexico. There are few places as "hard" as the USA. We've lured millions to our shores, then shut the doors. Why? Lots of places that are easier to get in than the USA have better welfare than the USA. But we still sell ourselves as the best, and people believe it, even when it's obviously not true anymore. I don't know the "why" to that one either.
The moment you kick the immigrants out, you see cases like these ones [time.com], where billions of dollars of produce were left to rot in the fields because all the immigrants who would have picked them were driven out by tough anti-immigrant laws.
There was high unemployment in the area, and no takers for the jobs. Was the pay unacceptably low, or were the working conditions sufficiently substandard that nobody wanted to work for them?
When there is high unemployment, claims that they can't find workers proves a fault on the business, not the workers.
It doesn't matter how much the loon is right on one issue, they still won't be listened to. The number of jobs is decreasing, the number of illegals don't influence that much. So the loons blaming the illegals don't have logic on their side anyway.
Nope. Abuses are almost always the employer abusing the abused.
At every place I ever worked, even though it's at will employment, management made sure to have a good case together before letting anyone go out of fear of any litigation.
Wow, you've worked for some really stupid places. It's "safer" to not document anything. "It just wasn't working out" is all they "should" say in an at-will state. Just about anything else can open them up to litigation. Even a well documented "you were chronically late" case could turn into an ADA case if the fired person claims they told their boss they weren't sleeping well. They don't have to detail the medical condition if they were informed of the symptoms. And a sleep disorder could be covered under the ADA. So justifying a firing for someone showing up late chronically (just as a random example) could land you in court for ADA violations. But "You are fired" with no justification would have been fine. The HR rules are (for non idiots) say the minimum possible.
Slashdot Mirror
That's different from what you wrote. If I hit someone in the face and he dies, it's not reckless indifference to human life but I did intent to harm him. Therefore, not murder but possibly manslaughter.
The Eggshell Skull Principle applies to criminal cases as well. It has been applied to make "indifference to human life" include any act that results in a forseeable death (not just an intended or reckless one).
Implied malice is proven by acts that involve reckless indifference to human life
That's a tautology. If you kill someone, then you exercised reckless indifference or worse.
Yes, it's different from what I said, but legal definitions are often the opposite of the actual definition. Much like Clinton's "no" with relations to sex was the only legal answer to the question asked, and the opposite of reality, which got a lot of confused Republicans to impeach him. The law is deliberately obtuse and confusing. If it weren't then we wouldn't be commiting 3 felonies a day for them to take out anyone they wanted. You don't have to have an official police state, when the unofficial police state is so efficient.
In case you didn't notice, 3G was a better mobile networking standard than anyone had ever proposed in history. So was HSPA and HSPA+. LVDS is a better signalling method for short-run data buses than anyone has ever proposed in history: PATA couldn't be serialized at 12V swings due to capacitance, and low voltages become susceptible to noise. At some point, we thought every preceding technology was the best: if we had better, we'd have used it.
And the "best" satellite error correction, still being rolled out today, was "invented" in 1960. And 3G is built off of an idea invented by an actress in WWII.
Nothing new is new. Electric cars are "new", but pre-dated internal combustion cars.
Nearly every economic policy/theory has been tried, and all but one failed. You have confidence that your new one will succeed where all others have succeeded. I'm not as confident in your plan.
Everywhere I've lived in the US, if you set out to harm someone, and that harm resulted in a death, that was murder. That's the standard definition. A pre-meditated act of harm with no intent to kill that results in a death is murder. "Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human," There needn't be intended killing, so long as there is malice aforethought (you intended to harm them).
If you don't use the definition I gave, what definition would you use? I just grabbed the first definition (it came from Wikipedia), as all I've seen agree with that.
Do you have an example of that, or just idle speculation? And I've seen worse happen in the US. More than one person has gone to jail for possession when they claim it was blatantly planted by the local government official.
Which word do you assert is use non-standardly?
As long as you don't define "freedom" by the number of guns you can own, yes. Both are more free than the USA, so long as you don't make it a habit to deliberately torment others.
On Slashdot, I remember the large number of posts when an adult targeted a child with a known mental illness and harassed her with the intent of causing her harm, and as a result of that successful harm, the child died (suicide). The overwhelming opinion on slashdot is that murder is ok. So long as you set up an elaborate trap with the intention of killing, but don't pull the trigger yourself.
If you think that you should have the right to harass people literally to death, then yes, you might want to stay in the US, one of the few places that's legal. Though I'd argue that it makes it less civilized, not more.
I've voted in every presidential election since 1992, and not once yet for a winning candidate.
You have only one solution. Move. England, Australia, or learn a new language. Let the remainder fight it out. After the collapse, I might come back. Or I might not.
You've clearly never been anywhere in south america or the part of the US you live in is an exceptional shit hole.
That comment was unrelated to anything I said before. You've never gotten back on topic since. You failed Turing with yourself.
Why do none of your responses have anything to do with the previous post? You want to object because I somehow offended you, but you aren't sure why? Or are you really just that dumb that by the time you click "reply" you remember you are angry, but can't remember why?
What about the people claiming things like atkins? They eat more calories and lose weight. How does that play into your theories?
Some want a progressive tax for UBI--make the rich pay, and make the system fail when the middle class expands
The expansion of the middle class is irrelevant to UBI. If you had 90% poor and 10% rich, then set up a progressive tax to provide for the UBI, the UBI and tax would be exactly the same with a distrivution of 10% poor, 80% middle class, and 10% rich.
So explain to me how the middle class in that example makes the system fail? There'll be *more* tax income with a large middle class than in the initial case.
The system as I describe is correct, viable, and more stable than anything anyone else has ever proposed in history.
And you wonder why nobody listens to you. You are smarter than everyone else who has ever lived, combined. Or at least that's how some could take your self assessment.
They would be horrified if they knew about the other threats.
Ah, come on, you are 90% of the way there, tell us about the "other threats" and how there are global conspiracies. Finish it off with a rant on gold and "fiat" and you'll have the nutjob trifecta.
There's a reason nobody takes you seriously. Everyone I've seen propose a UBI (including Fair Tax people) couldn't explain what would happen if the UBI was doubled. "It'd be bad" is the most detail I got from anyone. And the Fair Taxers don't even answer the question. They just threaten violence. No really. I've been threatened with violence for simply saying" what if we increased the tax by 10-15% and roll that number into the UBI (the fair taxers call prebate, but it's too low to be a liveable UBI).
And yes, I've talked to many Fair Taxers about using the prebate as UBI to eliminate welfare and medicare and such, but they seem to wretch at the idea.
Many people find this offensive. The idea that the government will give you money, just because you're an adult? The idea that you could live in an apartment with a 6x9 bedroom--half of which is taken up by a twin bed--and a 10x9 sitting room, and no money to afford cable TV or a 54 inch plasma display or an XBox, but can eat and shower and sleep in a bed, all without working a day in your life, horrifies people.
Yeah, that's not far off of "prison". That's why I push for a UBI that includes some extra income. So they can take the bus to the library to better themselves. If they can't do that, prison would be an upgrade, at least it has convenient access to a library and adult education.
If calories consumed are less than calories burned you must lose weight - it's simple physics, that energy has to come from somewhere.
And if you consume so few calories that you die, is that a good thing because at least you aren't fat?
You are also assuming a 100% absorption rate. That seems inaccurate.
I limited my range to only adults, and you used babies and pensioners as counter examples. You are the only straw-man builder here.
, the amount of weight gained or lost is directly proportional to the calorie difference between food eaten and energy expended.
Even if it were that simple, the amount of energy expended varies wildly. Some people burn more at rest then others to while exercising.
Facts prove you wrong. People with a set diet and consistent exercise for many years will keep "regular" weight from, say, puberty to 40, then gain weight from 40+. With no change to food or exercise.
There must be some other mechanism.
It's not complicated.
Then why are there 10,000,000,000,books, with opposite opinions? Are carbs good or bad? How about fat?
Oh, it is complicated. digestion and metabolism are seen by many to have a greater effect than the calories in the food consumed.
Inability to control your own actions becomes a valid form of disability.
Like alcoholism being listed as a disease? That put it on the protected list in the USA. Discriminating against someone for a disease is a "bad thing".
Oh come on, that's why the troops have been *there* for the past decade. Iraq was always fucked up, America went in to stop some serious badness happening, and spent over 10 years there trying to fix things up.
You mean it wasn't about 9/11 and WMDs? Why were we there before? Because the WMDs we sold Saddam were expiring, and we wanted a new puppet strong enough to fight Iran? I get lost in the ever-changing reasons we give for invading the same places over and over again.
Clearly you've never heard of Europe.
Or are you saying that so long as there's at least one country worse than the USA, that the USA is the best? The logic just doesn't work that well. And as for South America, many Americans run south. How's McAfee doing? Fled the US, then fled his hideaway when he killed his neighbor?
As opposed to the right-wing stance on abortion? It's ok if they are at least 14, and preferably Black and have a mental illness. But we'll call it "execution" rather than "abortion". Feels better that way.
Riddle me this... which country do you think its easier to become a citizen in... The United States or Mexico?
Mexico. There are few places as "hard" as the USA. We've lured millions to our shores, then shut the doors. Why? Lots of places that are easier to get in than the USA have better welfare than the USA. But we still sell ourselves as the best, and people believe it, even when it's obviously not true anymore. I don't know the "why" to that one either.
The moment you kick the immigrants out, you see cases like these ones [time.com], where billions of dollars of produce were left to rot in the fields because all the immigrants who would have picked them were driven out by tough anti-immigrant laws.
There was high unemployment in the area, and no takers for the jobs. Was the pay unacceptably low, or were the working conditions sufficiently substandard that nobody wanted to work for them?
When there is high unemployment, claims that they can't find workers proves a fault on the business, not the workers.
It doesn't matter how much the loon is right on one issue, they still won't be listened to. The number of jobs is decreasing, the number of illegals don't influence that much. So the loons blaming the illegals don't have logic on their side anyway.
The abuses go both ways.
Nope. Abuses are almost always the employer abusing the abused.
At every place I ever worked, even though it's at will employment, management made sure to have a good case together before letting anyone go out of fear of any litigation.
Wow, you've worked for some really stupid places. It's "safer" to not document anything. "It just wasn't working out" is all they "should" say in an at-will state. Just about anything else can open them up to litigation. Even a well documented "you were chronically late" case could turn into an ADA case if the fired person claims they told their boss they weren't sleeping well. They don't have to detail the medical condition if they were informed of the symptoms. And a sleep disorder could be covered under the ADA. So justifying a firing for someone showing up late chronically (just as a random example) could land you in court for ADA violations. But "You are fired" with no justification would have been fine. The HR rules are (for non idiots) say the minimum possible.