Murder? So if I'm driving on a windy mountain road (pedestrians not allowed) and a pedestrian jumps out from behind a rock, my choices are reduced to "drive off the cliff and die" or "stop as quickly as possible" with the latter probably including the death of the pedestrian, you assert that not committing suicide is murder. I think killing someone who causes a crash is perfectly fine, so long as there's no non-fatal choice.
Why? And regardless, why should society allow cars to use our roads if they are going to choose to do more damage to society than they need to?
For the same reason Drivers are charged with the same tasks. If you are driving on a two-lane road (one each way) mountain road and you have steady on-coming traffic, and a bicycle pulls out from the oncoming side into your path, you are faced with the choice of hitting a bicycle (usually not fatal for the car), steering off the cliff (usually certain death for the driver) or driving into oncoming traffic (fatalities depend greatly on speed and secondary impacts), do you steer into oncoming traffic, which has the lowest overall chance of a fatality? Slow as fast as possible and stay in your lane, hitting the bicycle if they are still there (the middle case for a fatality)? Or drive off the cliff (guaranteed fatality)? Does it matter if it was a pack of bicycles?
I would say that if I'm 100% legal, then the actions of others shouldn't be an excuse for my car to kill me. Enlightened self interest is better than selfishness, but is still self interest. I don't want a car that kills me if someone else drives unsafely. They should bear the responsibility for their actions. The person most at fault for the incident should bear a greater amount of the damage.
Then the H-1B should have a time limit equal to training one person. And they should train that one person. So in 5 years, we have one less H-1B and one more trained American. It doesn't mattter how long it takes, the H-1B can be the short-term fix, and the training the long-term fix.
Slipping to get moving from a stop is done for cars as well as bikes. Everything you list is the same as a car. But yes, a bike is less smooth than a car, and if you want it to ride like a car, you'll have to use the clutch more to smooth out the ride. That's a personal preference thing. Though I ride with the clutch in more because there are times I like to coast, and coasting at 45mph+ on a bike in neutral is impractical.
I also earn a good six-figure salary, so I'm definitely not here to help my employer cut any costs.
Just because you are making $250k or whatever doesn't mean they wouldn't be paying $350k if there was no H-1B visas, so yes, even at that, you are cutting costs.
Pulling the lever is murder. Choosing to not pull the lever isn't murder. Pulling the lever is an action that kills 3 people. By your logic, failing to get on a plane this morning with 300 lbs of rice to fly to Africa is murder, because someone there died today from starvation or malnutrition. And I'm physically capable of stopping it. Where does my duty to stop death stop? If everyone could be saved if I throw myself in front of the train, is my choice to commit suicide or go to jail forever for murder? What if the lever is broken, and switching the track requires I grab two exposed electrical contacts? What if there's a chance of that killing me to complete the circuit? How about you see a train headed towards a stalled school bus, and you can switch it over to a different track, and if you do, the bus driver will get it to start and pulls forward and kills the 300 children on the bus, but if you don't, the bus driver drives away cleanly?
When the choice assumes 100% knowledge and infinite reflection time for a 1/10th second judgment call, how can either choice be "murder"? The scenario isn't realistic enough to matter.
At the risk of a Godwin, the guards at concentration camps didn't cause the Holocaust to start, but they were complicit in allowing it to continue.
They weren't responsible for the deaths at other camps, but they were 100% responsible for the deaths they caused. It was the guards who lead them into gas chambers. The guards took positive actions (on orders) to kill innocents.
A choice isn't an action. The police got a call that a known criminal violated his restraining order (by making a death threat). They failed to act. The police were told that the criminal was in the process of violating the restraining order by means of trespass. The police failed to act. The police were notified of shots fired, where they responded and found the dead caller from the earlier calls. The courts ruled that acceptable. You'd call that pre-meditated murder. I don't care what the opinion of some idiot AC is when the courts of the nation prove otherwise.
Plus, a good friend of mine clued me in on one of his rules for living a long life: Never ride in a helicopter... or as the non-copter pilots say: If the wings are moving faster than the body, its either in a spin, or a helicopter, either way its probably not safe
Hmmm, I guess, having flown a helicopter, that exempts me from objecting. Airplanes are boring to fly. Professional pilots fall asleep at the wheel all the time, only rarely both at the same time, and sometimes that makes it on the news. That can't happen in a helicopter. If you fall asleep, you crash. It's a little more stressful, but piles more fun. The risk is controllable if you are the pilot. That's why the pilots don't fear them.
Illegally sending sensitive insider information that could affect stock price to a 3rd party is considered illegal. That you "trust them not to tell" doesn't change that.
Privacy laws prevent sharing of customer data with 3rd parties without explicit permission, and we have explicit permission for billing and collections only, as far as I know. So customer data is out.
So any publicly traded company is likely breaking the law if they use dropbox for anything not cleared for public distribution.
So you don't interact with the world at all? Nearly every commercial is a lie. All news is lies (the amusement is watching people argue about the types of lies told by the carious outlets). Even the conspiracy theorists lie. Many of the claims were deliberately inflated to call attention, then "refined" as the truth came out. Bush lied all the time (probably more), were you equally outraged then? "Read my lips, no new taxes" was followed up by more taxes, and millions more after that.
For the Roth IRA, you pay taxes on contributions now, and when you take the money out in retirement, it is tax free because taxes were already paid on contributions. If your tax rate now is lower than you think your tax rate will be in retirement, this is a good option for you.
What other income (the growth of the Roth is income) is tax-free? You use after-tax dollars to buy in and get after-tax dollars out, but the dollars out exceed the dollars in. The capital gain from a Roth is tax free. Though capital gains tax is low now, so it's not as big of a deal, but if capital gains were where they should be (40% or so, or top-bracket + 5%), the difference would be more prominent.
A Roth IRA is for people in one of two situations. They have maxed out their traditional IRA contributions
That was my case. I've put the legal max in both. Helps keep the tax burden down, too. Though I'm not eligible anymore, so my contributions are on hold for a while.
The article I linked to indicated that the inertia was over-rated, as the warming could cause a massive slip of ice into the sea, causing a very short-timespan increase of the ocean level of 15 feet (the rest will follow, but the first 15 foot jump could be in as little as 2 years after the flow starts).
150m will be very disruptive, but won't wipe out most of the US. China will lose some of the larger cities (Guangzhou/Canton, Shanghai), but still has lots of land in western China and Tibet. Though Brazil, one of the up and comers, will lose a lot (nearly all the Amazon basin). I have no idea who will go where, There will be enough land for everyone, even if there won'd be enough for any specific people to live in the manner they had become accustomed.
They are forbidden where I am too. Putting SOX or customer data on them is not just frowned upon, but illegal (and no, not SOX data, but data that falls under SOX rules).
I've been using (and loving) the omnibar for 15 years. That someone did it wrong isn't a problem with the feature, but the implementation. Opera had it long ago, though possibly not in exactly the same manner as done today.
It's a routine (but unfortunate) attack on a US embassy. Not the first, won't be the last. And the conservative conspiracy nuts are making it out to be an impeachable offense, but can't name the offense. Is it the PR fraud to promote the idea of control? Or is it not having OK'd requests for security? The "cover-up" was obviously not actionable because there was none, as you state the events are all fact, and thus not in dispute, as they would have been with a cover-up.
So where's the problem? Everyone I've asked about it who thinks the administration is to blame changes their story. The best you can to do answer any questions is to insult me. If you are incapable of forming a coherent statement, that's not my fault. Why are you incapapble of stating your opinion in a clear and concise manner? Is it beacuse you don't care what the "facts" are you talk about, but you just use it as a reason to hate someone you already hated. You must really love Obama deep down, if you have to keep searching so hard for reasons to hate him and his administration.
And what happens to land price when the seas rise 15 feet? That'll take out lots of the large cities on the East Coast, and many places in Europe will be hurting.
So what? No, really. So what? So the "cover up" that didn't happen, because, as you say it's all "fact" was to cover up some denied requests for additional security?
As you say: What security problem? "The ambassador was walking around outside an hour before the assault." Had he thought there such laz security, wouldn't he have taken greater measures to keep himself safe in such an unsafe environment?
If they were not meant as a retirement vehicle, why can't I touch my 401(k)? I have a few hundred thousand tied up in it. But the law requires I keep it in there or face big penalties.
And you "save" not tax with a 401(k), you just get to defer some. The Roth is the only one that lets you "avoid" tax.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/worl... If the "worst case" comes true, then there will be billions affected, and in a few years. The current word is that the risks of a major "thaw" of Antartica are understated.
Slashdot Mirror
Murder? So if I'm driving on a windy mountain road (pedestrians not allowed) and a pedestrian jumps out from behind a rock, my choices are reduced to "drive off the cliff and die" or "stop as quickly as possible" with the latter probably including the death of the pedestrian, you assert that not committing suicide is murder. I think killing someone who causes a crash is perfectly fine, so long as there's no non-fatal choice.
Why? And regardless, why should society allow cars to use our roads if they are going to choose to do more damage to society than they need to?
For the same reason Drivers are charged with the same tasks. If you are driving on a two-lane road (one each way) mountain road and you have steady on-coming traffic, and a bicycle pulls out from the oncoming side into your path, you are faced with the choice of hitting a bicycle (usually not fatal for the car), steering off the cliff (usually certain death for the driver) or driving into oncoming traffic (fatalities depend greatly on speed and secondary impacts), do you steer into oncoming traffic, which has the lowest overall chance of a fatality? Slow as fast as possible and stay in your lane, hitting the bicycle if they are still there (the middle case for a fatality)? Or drive off the cliff (guaranteed fatality)? Does it matter if it was a pack of bicycles?
I would say that if I'm 100% legal, then the actions of others shouldn't be an excuse for my car to kill me. Enlightened self interest is better than selfishness, but is still self interest. I don't want a car that kills me if someone else drives unsafely. They should bear the responsibility for their actions. The person most at fault for the incident should bear a greater amount of the damage.
Wait, are H-1B workers visiting workers, or immigrants? There's a difference, even if the government deliberately tries to confuse us.
Then the H-1B should have a time limit equal to training one person. And they should train that one person. So in 5 years, we have one less H-1B and one more trained American. It doesn't mattter how long it takes, the H-1B can be the short-term fix, and the training the long-term fix.
Slipping to get moving from a stop is done for cars as well as bikes. Everything you list is the same as a car. But yes, a bike is less smooth than a car, and if you want it to ride like a car, you'll have to use the clutch more to smooth out the ride. That's a personal preference thing. Though I ride with the clutch in more because there are times I like to coast, and coasting at 45mph+ on a bike in neutral is impractical.
I also earn a good six-figure salary, so I'm definitely not here to help my employer cut any costs.
Just because you are making $250k or whatever doesn't mean they wouldn't be paying $350k if there was no H-1B visas, so yes, even at that, you are cutting costs.
Pulling the lever is murder. Choosing to not pull the lever isn't murder. Pulling the lever is an action that kills 3 people. By your logic, failing to get on a plane this morning with 300 lbs of rice to fly to Africa is murder, because someone there died today from starvation or malnutrition. And I'm physically capable of stopping it. Where does my duty to stop death stop? If everyone could be saved if I throw myself in front of the train, is my choice to commit suicide or go to jail forever for murder? What if the lever is broken, and switching the track requires I grab two exposed electrical contacts? What if there's a chance of that killing me to complete the circuit? How about you see a train headed towards a stalled school bus, and you can switch it over to a different track, and if you do, the bus driver will get it to start and pulls forward and kills the 300 children on the bus, but if you don't, the bus driver drives away cleanly?
When the choice assumes 100% knowledge and infinite reflection time for a 1/10th second judgment call, how can either choice be "murder"? The scenario isn't realistic enough to matter.
At the risk of a Godwin, the guards at concentration camps didn't cause the Holocaust to start, but they were complicit in allowing it to continue.
They weren't responsible for the deaths at other camps, but they were 100% responsible for the deaths they caused. It was the guards who lead them into gas chambers. The guards took positive actions (on orders) to kill innocents.
A choice isn't an action. The police got a call that a known criminal violated his restraining order (by making a death threat). They failed to act. The police were told that the criminal was in the process of violating the restraining order by means of trespass. The police failed to act. The police were notified of shots fired, where they responded and found the dead caller from the earlier calls. The courts ruled that acceptable. You'd call that pre-meditated murder. I don't care what the opinion of some idiot AC is when the courts of the nation prove otherwise.
Morpheus is played by Lawrence Fishburne, an AA actor
What's an "AA actor"? Seriously, in that context, it doesn't make sense.
Wait, are we talking Almost Human or Firefly?
Doesn't work. Most people against marijuana have tried it with no ill effects. Exposure doesn't affect future opinions. Irrational, but true.
Plus, a good friend of mine clued me in on one of his rules for living a long life: Never ride in a helicopter... or as the non-copter pilots say: If the wings are moving faster than the body, its either in a spin, or a helicopter, either way its probably not safe
Hmmm, I guess, having flown a helicopter, that exempts me from objecting. Airplanes are boring to fly. Professional pilots fall asleep at the wheel all the time, only rarely both at the same time, and sometimes that makes it on the news. That can't happen in a helicopter. If you fall asleep, you crash. It's a little more stressful, but piles more fun. The risk is controllable if you are the pilot. That's why the pilots don't fear them.
Illegally sending sensitive insider information that could affect stock price to a 3rd party is considered illegal. That you "trust them not to tell" doesn't change that.
Privacy laws prevent sharing of customer data with 3rd parties without explicit permission, and we have explicit permission for billing and collections only, as far as I know. So customer data is out.
So any publicly traded company is likely breaking the law if they use dropbox for anything not cleared for public distribution.
So you don't interact with the world at all? Nearly every commercial is a lie. All news is lies (the amusement is watching people argue about the types of lies told by the carious outlets). Even the conspiracy theorists lie. Many of the claims were deliberately inflated to call attention, then "refined" as the truth came out. Bush lied all the time (probably more), were you equally outraged then? "Read my lips, no new taxes" was followed up by more taxes, and millions more after that.
For the Roth IRA, you pay taxes on contributions now, and when you take the money out in retirement, it is tax free because taxes were already paid on contributions. If your tax rate now is lower than you think your tax rate will be in retirement, this is a good option for you.
What other income (the growth of the Roth is income) is tax-free? You use after-tax dollars to buy in and get after-tax dollars out, but the dollars out exceed the dollars in. The capital gain from a Roth is tax free. Though capital gains tax is low now, so it's not as big of a deal, but if capital gains were where they should be (40% or so, or top-bracket + 5%), the difference would be more prominent.
A Roth IRA is for people in one of two situations. They have maxed out their traditional IRA contributions
That was my case. I've put the legal max in both. Helps keep the tax burden down, too. Though I'm not eligible anymore, so my contributions are on hold for a while.
The article I linked to indicated that the inertia was over-rated, as the warming could cause a massive slip of ice into the sea, causing a very short-timespan increase of the ocean level of 15 feet (the rest will follow, but the first 15 foot jump could be in as little as 2 years after the flow starts).
150m will be very disruptive, but won't wipe out most of the US. China will lose some of the larger cities (Guangzhou/Canton, Shanghai), but still has lots of land in western China and Tibet. Though Brazil, one of the up and comers, will lose a lot (nearly all the Amazon basin). I have no idea who will go where, There will be enough land for everyone, even if there won'd be enough for any specific people to live in the manner they had become accustomed.
They are forbidden where I am too. Putting SOX or customer data on them is not just frowned upon, but illegal (and no, not SOX data, but data that falls under SOX rules).
I've been using (and loving) the omnibar for 15 years. That someone did it wrong isn't a problem with the feature, but the implementation. Opera had it long ago, though possibly not in exactly the same manner as done today.
It's a routine (but unfortunate) attack on a US embassy. Not the first, won't be the last. And the conservative conspiracy nuts are making it out to be an impeachable offense, but can't name the offense. Is it the PR fraud to promote the idea of control? Or is it not having OK'd requests for security? The "cover-up" was obviously not actionable because there was none, as you state the events are all fact, and thus not in dispute, as they would have been with a cover-up.
So where's the problem? Everyone I've asked about it who thinks the administration is to blame changes their story. The best you can to do answer any questions is to insult me. If you are incapable of forming a coherent statement, that's not my fault. Why are you incapapble of stating your opinion in a clear and concise manner? Is it beacuse you don't care what the "facts" are you talk about, but you just use it as a reason to hate someone you already hated. You must really love Obama deep down, if you have to keep searching so hard for reasons to hate him and his administration.
And what happens to land price when the seas rise 15 feet? That'll take out lots of the large cities on the East Coast, and many places in Europe will be hurting.
So what? No, really. So what? So the "cover up" that didn't happen, because, as you say it's all "fact" was to cover up some denied requests for additional security?
As you say: What security problem? "The ambassador was walking around outside an hour before the assault." Had he thought there such laz security, wouldn't he have taken greater measures to keep himself safe in such an unsafe environment?
If they were not meant as a retirement vehicle, why can't I touch my 401(k)? I have a few hundred thousand tied up in it. But the law requires I keep it in there or face big penalties.
And you "save" not tax with a 401(k), you just get to defer some. The Roth is the only one that lets you "avoid" tax.
DHMO has a warning page all to itself. We've yet to see a case of cancer that didn't have prior DHMO use.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/worl... If the "worst case" comes true, then there will be billions affected, and in a few years. The current word is that the risks of a major "thaw" of Antartica are understated.