Or they could become overpaid IT techs who can't design an open access website to comply with government accessibility standards. How about 7 million to "install a firewall" from Norton or AVG or something?
It seems your right. Further examination of the law indicates that the false information is illegal on it's own only when tied to trademark and copyright violations.
However, the sentencing enhancements (see section g) seem to apply to any felony committed that can be tied to false domain information. I'm assuming this could be tied to failures to report taxable income that becomes a felony (under reporting sales from the site), to committing felony fraud or anything else that the domain could be linked to.
The domain proxy services wouldn't necessarily cause a violation of this law. That's because you are contracting the proxy service to purchase-register the domain on your behalf in which they promise to allow you the control and ownership rights to. The information wouldn't be false, it would just be complicated or obscured but still accurate and readily availible.
And as I said, there are options to alleviate the scarcity of the oil and the impact it will have. Things will get more expensive but it will not be as drastic as presented. Especially when the FT process can eliminated the needs to press oils or ferment biomass making biofuel processes more energy efficient then current methods as well as being able to use waste streams like sewage treatment or garbage disposal as feed stock.
With the modern catalyst technology, almost any organic material can be broken to it's raw elements and re-conformed to produce oil, gas, propane, hydrogen or about any other energy elements deemed necessary. The waste generally associated with the FT process has been fixed so to say making it so much more reliable and efficient that it increased the efficiency of coal electric generation from around 40% to 45 and 50 percent. These plants are on line currently and coming on line as we talk about it.
It also doesn't solve the problem that providing fake information to domain registrars is a felony in the US and probably a couple more countries. In fact, if you commit a felony that is somehow connected to a domain with fake registration information, your sentence is automatically increased by 7 years or doubled whichever is less.
I'm not sure I would recommend doing that. And if your in a country where it isn't illegal, then make sure the registrar isn't or it could suck you into the law there. I'm not sure they would extradite you or anything, but a warrant could sneak up on you down the road when attempting to get a better job or visiting certain countries or if the cops in your own country get a boner for you and want to use it as an excuse to take you down town once a year and hold you for several days seeing if anyone wants to extradite you. I was once held for 3 days on 4 or 5 unpaid parking tickets from 10 years prior that happens 5 months after I sold the car.
A lot of company domain names are registered to individuals inside the company for some reason. I've had to deal with that many times over the years when a former IT person is listed as the owner and is the only one capable of making changes to it. Anyways, I don't think there is anything that could stop that from happening on purpose. A reason you might want to do it on purpose might be in order to get around the public knowing your associated with several different sights praising your products or pretending to sell them because they're the best.
I got a domain once for the purpose of protesting some things on a local level. The more popular the site became, the more annoying it was. I used fake information (this was before it became against the law to do so) but kept the admin Email and contact phone number to a legitimate line. I got threats and all kinds of crap including the phone ringing at 2 am because someone wanted to disagree with something. I ended up paying a company to list themselves as the owner. It's what stopped the calls and crap. I've since given the site away to some like minded people who use it to this day.
I can see why someone would want their info hidden.
Your Physics professor could be the reason years and millions of dollars of investigation hasn't yielded the same results as the 5 dollar research. I mean seriously, if findings are rejected because of the cost associated with the research, then there are problems.
Driving can be a particularly difficult subject area because it's generally governed by different state laws. Another problem is intentional actions verses unintentional actions and reckless verses careless defining the difference between an accident and assault in most cases. However, in general, the owner of the vehicle is the primary resource of liability and damages recovery and in some states like mine, it's encoded in law (except with rentals and leases then it's the contracting party).
Anyways, there are mitigating circumstances here that should be discussed. For one, the different states have different state laws but it could be possible that neither you or the company was issued a citation because the cop couldn't determine actual wrong doing. An example of this is where two cars on a country road with no center line collide and both drivers claim the other person cross the center of the road. Often neither driver is cited unless skid marks or witnesses can clearly show one person was in the wrong with the other in the right. But both drivers or vehicle owners would be responsible for the damages to the other vehicles (insurance requirements). Now if the cop couldn't show that you were speeding, driving recklessly, failed to obey some law or whatever, Lets say there was an oil slick at the intersection causing you to lose traction on what would otherwise be a normal and legal drive or perhaps you looked away and got distracted for a split second before it was too late to stop, you could have been spared the citation. Some states even limit liability when no personal injury has happened to just repair or replacement of the vehicle. Some states automatically require the Pizza shop to purchase and maintain insurance on all it's delivery drivers regardless of who owns the vehicle. The liability you didn't see was most likely already covered by the insurance.
Now also, if the company pays the damages, the liability is gone. The injured are not entitled to twice the damages because two parties might be liable. They are entitled to just the legal damages however it can be collected. Most states hold the company liable for damages from actions of the employee. This is a legal concept known as Respondeat superior (let the master answer). However, if the company folds before paying the damages, you can be included in the liability from your actions. It just happens that you weren't needed to be in your scenario.
Here are a few examples of where drivers- while driving company trucks, have been held personally liable for their actions. Not all of them are from America but it's a common thing around the world. Those are some pretty serious offenses where more then property damage happened. I know of two truck drivers in the US who were in accidents and one wasn't cited or sued or anything because it was someone else' fault. The other one ended up losing a lawsuit for over 2 million dollars and spent 18 months in jail because he was doing 20 MPH over the speed limit and someone died in the accident. Of course he doesn't have the 2.something million dollars, and his wife got the house several years before that.
So you do not think that fingerprints or photo's for facial recognition are effective would thwart their attempts at hiding their identities?
Hmm.. I didn't know you could change your fingerprints. Plastic surgery can change a person's face but that's pointless and problematic is the real slim shady stood up and the fake ID's face didn't match.
And that candidate ended up winning the election by numbers that defied all polls leading up to the election. The people spoke as a reaction to the train bombings. What the op said it true.
Your right, there will not be any oil shortages any time soon.
However, if there was, it wouldn't be as bad as you think. Most diesel engines can be modified relatively easily to run on propane-natural gas. Also, there is bio-diesel as well as coal gasification that can be used. Not to mention that in the US, we already have coal gasification in production for electrical generation which is more efficient and cleaner then burning coal in it's natural form.Recent breakthroughs can make synthetic diesel which burns cleaner then traditional oil (even gasoline) cheaply and cost competitive to about $45-$70 a barrel oil.
The Fischer Trospch (FT) synthesis process can actually be used on municipal wastes and other bio sources of carbon too. Imagine the shit factory of LA or NYC producing a majority of the nations diesel and gasoline (albeit syngas). Work is being done currently that suggest using the FT process on corn can create fuels much cheaper then conventional fermenting and distillation.
Pennsylvania recently announced plans to purchase Diesel for their state vehicles and equipment, synthetic diesel made from waste coal from mining operations. I'm not sure if the FT plan is operational but it's likely close to being there if it isn't.
While a lot of this is niche or in development, it will be a lot more mature and availible by the time we run out of oil if we even need it still.
The CDC did a study and estimated that 36,000 people in the US die from the flue each year. This estimate includes people dieing from other diseases while having the flue since the flu compromises the immunity system and allows other chronic illnesses to set in or strengthen. I'm going to assume the numbers for Sweden do the same.
Also, the population of US is more around 33.20 times that of Sweden. 30 times is enough for a rough estimate but seeing how we got real numbers from the CDC, I figure pointing this out too could be helpful. The 33.20 cam from dividing the population of the US by the population of Sweden as reported in their respective Wikipedia entries. OF course we should know to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt but I have no reason to think the numbers aren't real.
No, not really. As I pointed out, the liability is only limited from actions you do not take. Also poor people can own shares or invest in companies. It's the same risks for either, the only difference is choosing to invest or not.
A lot of times, when you invest in a company, you have no idea of the harm it does until completely after it's happened. Do you seriously think people should lose their retirement, their homes, for actions they took no part in and no idea of or the illegality of until after the fact?
Obviously you are one of those people who will never invest in anything.
A lot of what you say can and does happen right now. States and federal agencies as well as courts can ban or bar companies from doing business in their jurisdiction. When illegal activity does happen, they do attempt to find who actually did the act and bring them to the full accountability under the law. The problem is that a lot of times, the only way to track who did what is by examining the accounting and internal documentation of a company and by interviewing employees. If the person knows their actions were illegal and covers his tracks, it's very difficult to prove any one person was involved where it's easier to prove that the company they represent was included in the actions causing the violation. This is why you see companies getting fined without people inside them being arrested. It's easier to prove the company is at fault then any specific person inside the company when they cover their tracks. And to that point, any company has an obligation to make sure it's actions and actions taken by it's employees in it's behalf are legal.
The idea of a (limited liability) corporation started to protect the private assets of the corporation owners. And that's where it should have ended.
It did stop there. What your seeing is complexity of finding out who did something wrong verses pointing the blame on the company they represent. However, it should be noted that the limited liability will only protect asses from actions the owners did not participate in or direct. Anyone breaking the law or taking an action causing a liability is still personally subject to that liability and the penalties of the law. Where the limitations apply is when you do not take an action yourself resulting in that liability. an example of this, you have a working lunch with a few of your employees. Your an owner of a small company incorporated for the specific purpose of liability. Now you drink a couple glasses of wine, and while driving the company car back to the office, you strike a pedestrian, a parked car, and get a DUI in the process. Now you are personally liable for all damages you did as well as the DUI. The company is liable too (generally vicariously). If you have a summer home at the lake, it would be shielded by the corporate limited liability but not by your personal liability. So assuming your sued, the company is sued, and you are both order to pay the differences of a judgment, the company can bankrupt itself but because you took an action and were personally liable, your summer home could be auctioned off to cover the differences in the judgment.
Remember, limitations on liability are only for actions you do not participate in unless a specific law limits your liability (good Samaritan laws, bankruptcy with no wrong doing, and so on).
When a CEO authorizes expenditures for illegal activities, the CEO shouldn't be absolved. Instead he should be charged with theft (of corporate money) on top of the illegal activity he authorized. The idea that he should go free instead is so completely backwards that it tells you who really runs things in this country.
This is actually the way it is now. However, the problem is that while it's easier to prove the company was being represented when wrong doings were happening, it's a lot harder to prove any specific person was involved. But when that can be proved (take the Enron, Tyco, or Worldcom accounting scandals and investment fraud for instance) the CEO's were aware or participated, they are held personally accountable for their actions.
It's not that the fines is all the courts can do. The problem with locking up a corporation is that it isn't a valid thing outside of a body designed to consolidate responsibility. It doesn't exist or act outside of people operating it and making actions. If someone takes an action that makes a corporation break a law, that person has broken the law and is subjecting themselves to the penalties in law.
The problem here which creates the idea that corporations can't be punished is that many laws concerning corporations do not have jail time as a penalty and it's often difficult to prove who was responsible for the violation in the first place. Here is a scenario to illustrate this. (disclaimer, I used to be in environmental remediation and hazardous waste cleanup and both these scenarios are adaptations of sites I became involved with) Company X does electroplating of metals and plastics and has hazardous wastes. They contract with a company to collect the wastes. A driver transferring the wastes leaves a valve unsecured and loses part of his load mid way through the trip. He knows it's his fault and thinks he would be in serious trouble as he should be so he conceals this loss. Now, fish in a nearby stream start dying and it's traced to a chemical used in electroplating. The wastes disposal manifests are checked and it's determined that 1500 units of waste were shipped with only 1400 units being received over a years time.
Ok, so now we know it was Company X's wastes, they get fined. But we can't track which shipment or who was driving it, or verify that it was loaded in the first place seeing how the loss was concealed. So the driver gets off and company X is responsible for the cleanup plus fines. Remember, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defendant so we have to be able to prove wrong doing and in most cases, we have to prove intentional wrong doing. So if we can't prove which employee screwed up, all we can do is fine the company for not keeping a better eye on their employees which allowed this to happen.
Another illustration, suppose the same raw elements as above are still true except that instead of a driver losing part of a load, we have a field that a CEO decided could save them some money by dumping the product there instead. OK, so the containers in the field start leaking, it's and it's discovered the chemicals are used in the electroplating process (and that the chemicals are from after a time period where is was illegal to dispose of them this way a it wasn't always illegal). The EPA looks at the companies in the area and combs over their disposal records and can't find anything missing. So they look at the tax records and the accounting for the company and finds that Company X did more business then their waste stream would indicate. Now the EPA and Justice department review all communications and work records for the times that the waste stream was light. They interview all the employees that were working there at the times (whether they are still employed or not) and determine that they were busier and should have more wastes and it's likely that the illegally dumped waste is theirs. Now, here is where a pivot-able point comes into play. If they can pinpoint anyone responsible for the illegal dumping, they will be held accountable along with the company and they will face jail time. But if they can't determine who directed the dumping or who actually did it, they are left with fining the company.
However, in either example, if it can be proven that any one person or multiple people did any specific action in violating the law or directing someone to violate the law, they can and will be held responsible for those acts- including jail time if the violation warrants. In a way, this is more punishment availible then for a any other person. Suppose someone was murdered in your back yard, your at work and your neighbor notices the dead body and calls the law. Now they can't prove it was you that did anything and they most likely wouldn't be able to prove who murde
You couldn't be more right except that by defining limited liability, you need to be aware that a corporation will not limit the liabilities of the actors involved with the activity that the liability stems from. In other words, you form a corporation and you work for it. If you wreck the company truck and kill a person, you are personally liable outside the liability of the corporation. The extent of the liability will only be limited by the law and any legal proceedings following your participation in the act.
The main benefit of a corporation is that non-participating actors (silent owners, share holders and so on who do not participate in running the corporation) are not obligated to other people's actions independent of their own actions outside the value of the investment. This is a necessary component of our business infrastructure otherwise a 2 billion dollar judgment on a company worth 500 million would result in all the share holder being responsible for the difference. Now think about that, you have 200 shares of company X in your retirement account at the advice of some brokerage firm and your house and property is being sold to satisfy some judgment from an action you have absolutely no control or influence over.
Available but not mandatory.. Hmm.. So the government should be able to choose communications media that is inaccessible to it's citizens and you are fine with that? How about if the government raise your taxes, published the notice in some magazine no one has ever heard of, and when you are expecting a huge return like last year and purchase that new big screen TV, you find out that you actually owe the government some money.
Here the problem. The government chooses to communicate with the citizens and traditionally, services and techniques have become availible for those citizens with special needs. Generally, they are extra devices or software that enables the citizen to gain the communication. Now when the government fails to meet accessibility guidelines, it means these people are shut out or then need 10,000 different devices or programs or have someone violate their privacy to read the shit to them. The government is the government of all the people, not just the ones who aren't freaks or deformed in some way. When the government publishes something, it has to be accessible to all the citizens. The guidelines make that possible with some effort on the person with the disadvantage.
This is a little different then a company not getting it right. You can chose to take your business elsewhere. You can't chose to create a new government in place of the existing one.
Perhaps it would be better if Slashdot created it's own spell check in the preview window. Then I wouldn't have to rely on Fire Fox's.
Anyways, there has been quite a few discussions over spell check either keeping people stupid or making them forget how to spell things when simple typing errors shine through.
BTW, save me a seat at the kiddie table and I'll bring a 12 pack of cheap beer.
Actually, maybe it is you who should read more and quit inferring details you have no idea of.
The criminal charges, of which they were acquitted, were for contempt of a court order, not for blessing the meal. They were at a luncheon (not a dinner) on school property and had obviously done it in the past since a court had told them they couldn't do it anymore. And yet they did it anyway. And someone had to have complained on both occasions or the ACLU would have never known about it. That's hardly the situation you described.
A court order the ACLU complained they violated because of saying a prayer over the meal. A luncheon and a dinner are the same thing so that point is a little anally ignorant. And no, they didn't get busted for this in the past, the ACLU got a restraining order because one of the teachers had pushed religious views onto the students and they found a handbook suggesting that students conduct themselves in a christian manner. The ACLU took this completely out of line and the judge ruled that way too.
Also, if you read more, you'd know the difference between the pledge of allegiance and the pledge of elegance. I'm not sure I've ever heard of the pledge of elegance, but it sounds like it would be making students pledge to wear ball gowns and tuxedos to school which seems like a stupid idea.
It's a fucking spelling error brought on by spell check suggesting the wrong word and me not checking. The more intelligent people in this thread knew exactly what was being talked about and the fact that you have never head of the pledge of elegance should indicate that it was either a spelling error or it was a topic you knew nothing about and shouldn't have opened you ignorant mouth about.
I'd also venture that we'd be doing away with the pledge of allegiance regardless of it's references to God. Blind allegiance to the state is the stuff of fascist and communist governments, not supposedly free countries like the US. Students shouldn't feel forced to support their country any more than they should feel forced to believe in a religion.
IF that was the case, then people wouldn't be complaining about the under god and complaining about the pledge itself. The problem you are not getting is that you are learning about the pledge in school, not committing yourself. There is nothing binding about the pledge and most of the intelligent people understand that.
And Christians are so quick to believe that Christmas is such an innocuous subject and yet would be up in arms if the school play or carols dealt with another religion. They don't want to see a school play depicting the miracle of the lamp oil that should have lasted only 1 night but lasted 8 nights (the basis for Chanukah) and they don't want their kids learning songs about dradles. Why should students and parents from other religions be forced to see plays and sing songs about Christmas when they're not allowed to see plays and sing songs about their own religion?
I have no idea why you would think that. What religion does Santa depict? Or better yet, where is the north pole, Santa, reign deer and all that depicted in the christian religion. Also, the entire Chanukka thing was represented at my school pretty well. We even catered to Kwanzaa which is a made up holiday originating in the 1960's for African American kids who were muslim and not christian.
Your ignorance about schools and plays or what Christians do is completely unfounded. You have made the world less intelligent with your comment on something you know nothing about.
There's a good reason why the rules about separation of church and state are in place. Without them, state officials who are religious can and
It's obvious that the country wouldn't be founded like it was if the compromise wouldn't have happened. I mean some states simply refused to ratify the constitution. Two states even waited until after George Washington was elected as the first president and took office before ratifying the constitution and accepting the compromise.
The divide would have been what later because the south during the civil war and if the north would have compiles a separate country from the south, then it would have taken an unfounded invasion to end slavery in the south. In fact, that probably wouldn't have happened because the south would have been no more important to us then Mexico at the time and we wouldn't have cared how they ran their country as long as they left us alone.
I mean seriously, the entire premise for the abolition of slavery on the largest part of the continental north America would have been removed. The argument doesn't have to win, it just clearly shows how stupid the counter argument is.
I would say more agnostic then anything if anything. I do take devils advocate in religious matters a lot though.
However, I believe that in a free society, you should be free to pursue any religion or no religion at all if you want. I also believe that there shouldn't be many restrictions on that outside of it being your choice and not being forced on your by a government and people are abusing the concept of it to promote their own alternative agenda.
No other country allowed women to vote at the time. Well, not all women with the exception of a few small countries. In fact, there are some that still do not allow them to vote. Furthermore, there are countries in existence today where no one is allowed to vote. Women in New Jersey had the vote since the beginning of the country. Women got the vote nationally within 30 years of most other places.
Why would you think the values held today were reflective back then and why would you assume that our more recent enlightenment is somehow damaging to previous cultures? The fact is, the entire formation of the US is what allowed woman's suffrage to progress in the US. You know, things like free speech and such that wouldn't have been enshrined in a bill of rights had not a compromise happened.
Ehh. spell check did that for us. It isn't the first time, it wom't be the last time, I guess this is what I can expect from an open source browser spell check implementation. Some of the more intelligent people knew what was being said. I'm sorry it cause you so much confusion.
I'm pretty sure I'm in agreement with what you said.
However, the flag pole prayers are generally held outside of school hours like in the morning before school when people are arriving. They show up early and just do it so I'm not sure provisioning of school resources is even involved. At least that is from what I understand. They are open to anyone wishing to participate and nothing forces them to.
A teacher should/will have authority as the courts have ruled that school authority can be assumed at any time on the school grounds. As long as that authority isn't used to promote the prayer event, I see no problems with it. However, I think it would be foolish to basically strip teachers of all authority when they participate in things like this. Situations arise like Kids playing dangerously on playground equipment, fighting, arguing, hazing other students, getting involved with drugs or dangerous object and so on are pretty much the purview of the teachers responsibilities while on school grounds (at to some extent, at least in my state, the school oversees the kids until a parent picks them up or they get home whichever comes first). I know I have been punished in school many times for fighting or cussing someone out on the way to or from school. One time, I cut through a person yard because I was running late and the school made me go back and replant flowers I supposedly killed in the process.
As for the pledge, Yea, take it back. However, I find it foolish to refuse to allow it because of it's mentioning. Many government documents created in the early years of the country and even to this day reference the year of our lord and so on within them Congress starts each day off with a prayer. Taken to the extreme, this entire "if it relates to god or religion in any way" could remove much of US history as well as government and civics from the schools. We already had one school (or was it all of California schools) ban teaching the declaration of independence because it referenced god. Some of the documents reportedly banned were excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, the diaries of George Washington and John Adams, writings from William Penn and various state constitutions.
To be fair though, they claimed the banned documents weren't their entirety, just excerpts used to demonstrate how religion played in the lives of the founding fathers. Still, I think that's a valid discussion model for students. Even if those influences do or do not play a role in the ongoing operation of the US to this day.
Slashdot Mirror
Or they could become overpaid IT techs who can't design an open access website to comply with government accessibility standards. How about 7 million to "install a firewall" from Norton or AVG or something?
It seems your right. Further examination of the law indicates that the false information is illegal on it's own only when tied to trademark and copyright violations.
However, the sentencing enhancements (see section g) seem to apply to any felony committed that can be tied to false domain information. I'm assuming this could be tied to failures to report taxable income that becomes a felony (under reporting sales from the site), to committing felony fraud or anything else that the domain could be linked to.
The domain proxy services wouldn't necessarily cause a violation of this law. That's because you are contracting the proxy service to purchase-register the domain on your behalf in which they promise to allow you the control and ownership rights to. The information wouldn't be false, it would just be complicated or obscured but still accurate and readily availible.
And as I said, there are options to alleviate the scarcity of the oil and the impact it will have. Things will get more expensive but it will not be as drastic as presented. Especially when the FT process can eliminated the needs to press oils or ferment biomass making biofuel processes more energy efficient then current methods as well as being able to use waste streams like sewage treatment or garbage disposal as feed stock.
With the modern catalyst technology, almost any organic material can be broken to it's raw elements and re-conformed to produce oil, gas, propane, hydrogen or about any other energy elements deemed necessary. The waste generally associated with the FT process has been fixed so to say making it so much more reliable and efficient that it increased the efficiency of coal electric generation from around 40% to 45 and 50 percent. These plants are on line currently and coming on line as we talk about it.
It also doesn't solve the problem that providing fake information to domain registrars is a felony in the US and probably a couple more countries. In fact, if you commit a felony that is somehow connected to a domain with fake registration information, your sentence is automatically increased by 7 years or doubled whichever is less.
I'm not sure I would recommend doing that. And if your in a country where it isn't illegal, then make sure the registrar isn't or it could suck you into the law there. I'm not sure they would extradite you or anything, but a warrant could sneak up on you down the road when attempting to get a better job or visiting certain countries or if the cops in your own country get a boner for you and want to use it as an excuse to take you down town once a year and hold you for several days seeing if anyone wants to extradite you. I was once held for 3 days on 4 or 5 unpaid parking tickets from 10 years prior that happens 5 months after I sold the car.
A lot of company domain names are registered to individuals inside the company for some reason. I've had to deal with that many times over the years when a former IT person is listed as the owner and is the only one capable of making changes to it. Anyways, I don't think there is anything that could stop that from happening on purpose. A reason you might want to do it on purpose might be in order to get around the public knowing your associated with several different sights praising your products or pretending to sell them because they're the best.
I got a domain once for the purpose of protesting some things on a local level. The more popular the site became, the more annoying it was. I used fake information (this was before it became against the law to do so) but kept the admin Email and contact phone number to a legitimate line. I got threats and all kinds of crap including the phone ringing at 2 am because someone wanted to disagree with something. I ended up paying a company to list themselves as the owner. It's what stopped the calls and crap. I've since given the site away to some like minded people who use it to this day.
I can see why someone would want their info hidden.
Your Physics professor could be the reason years and millions of dollars of investigation hasn't yielded the same results as the 5 dollar research. I mean seriously, if findings are rejected because of the cost associated with the research, then there are problems.
Driving can be a particularly difficult subject area because it's generally governed by different state laws. Another problem is intentional actions verses unintentional actions and reckless verses careless defining the difference between an accident and assault in most cases. However, in general, the owner of the vehicle is the primary resource of liability and damages recovery and in some states like mine, it's encoded in law (except with rentals and leases then it's the contracting party).
Anyways, there are mitigating circumstances here that should be discussed. For one, the different states have different state laws but it could be possible that neither you or the company was issued a citation because the cop couldn't determine actual wrong doing. An example of this is where two cars on a country road with no center line collide and both drivers claim the other person cross the center of the road. Often neither driver is cited unless skid marks or witnesses can clearly show one person was in the wrong with the other in the right. But both drivers or vehicle owners would be responsible for the damages to the other vehicles (insurance requirements). Now if the cop couldn't show that you were speeding, driving recklessly, failed to obey some law or whatever, Lets say there was an oil slick at the intersection causing you to lose traction on what would otherwise be a normal and legal drive or perhaps you looked away and got distracted for a split second before it was too late to stop, you could have been spared the citation. Some states even limit liability when no personal injury has happened to just repair or replacement of the vehicle. Some states automatically require the Pizza shop to purchase and maintain insurance on all it's delivery drivers regardless of who owns the vehicle. The liability you didn't see was most likely already covered by the insurance.
Now also, if the company pays the damages, the liability is gone. The injured are not entitled to twice the damages because two parties might be liable. They are entitled to just the legal damages however it can be collected. Most states hold the company liable for damages from actions of the employee. This is a legal concept known as Respondeat superior (let the master answer). However, if the company folds before paying the damages, you can be included in the liability from your actions. It just happens that you weren't needed to be in your scenario.
Here are a few examples of where drivers- while driving company trucks, have been held personally liable for their actions. Not all of them are from America but it's a common thing around the world. Those are some pretty serious offenses where more then property damage happened. I know of two truck drivers in the US who were in accidents and one wasn't cited or sued or anything because it was someone else' fault. The other one ended up losing a lawsuit for over 2 million dollars and spent 18 months in jail because he was doing 20 MPH over the speed limit and someone died in the accident. Of course he doesn't have the 2.something million dollars, and his wife got the house several years before that.
So you do not think that fingerprints or photo's for facial recognition are effective would thwart their attempts at hiding their identities?
Hmm.. I didn't know you could change your fingerprints. Plastic surgery can change a person's face but that's pointless and problematic is the real slim shady stood up and the fake ID's face didn't match.
And that candidate ended up winning the election by numbers that defied all polls leading up to the election. The people spoke as a reaction to the train bombings. What the op said it true.
Your right, there will not be any oil shortages any time soon.
However, if there was, it wouldn't be as bad as you think. Most diesel engines can be modified relatively easily to run on propane-natural gas. Also, there is bio-diesel as well as coal gasification that can be used. Not to mention that in the US, we already have coal gasification in production for electrical generation which is more efficient and cleaner then burning coal in it's natural form.Recent breakthroughs can make synthetic diesel which burns cleaner then traditional oil
(even gasoline) cheaply and cost competitive to about $45-$70 a barrel oil.
The Fischer Trospch (FT) synthesis process can actually be used on municipal wastes and other bio sources of carbon too. Imagine the shit factory of LA or NYC producing a majority of the nations diesel and gasoline (albeit syngas). Work is being done currently that suggest using the FT process on corn can create fuels much cheaper then conventional fermenting and distillation.
Pennsylvania recently announced plans to purchase Diesel for their state vehicles and equipment, synthetic diesel made from waste coal from mining operations. I'm not sure if the FT plan is operational but it's likely close to being there if it isn't.
While a lot of this is niche or in development, it will be a lot more mature and availible by the time we run out of oil if we even need it still.
The CDC did a study and estimated that 36,000 people in the US die from the flue each year. This estimate includes people dieing from other diseases while having the flue since the flu compromises the immunity system and allows other chronic illnesses to set in or strengthen. I'm going to assume the numbers for Sweden do the same.
Also, the population of US is more around 33.20 times that of Sweden. 30 times is enough for a rough estimate but seeing how we got real numbers from the CDC, I figure pointing this out too could be helpful. The 33.20 cam from dividing the population of the US by the population of Sweden as reported in their respective Wikipedia entries. OF course we should know to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt but I have no reason to think the numbers aren't real.
No, not really. As I pointed out, the liability is only limited from actions you do not take. Also poor people can own shares or invest in companies. It's the same risks for either, the only difference is choosing to invest or not.
A lot of times, when you invest in a company, you have no idea of the harm it does until completely after it's happened. Do you seriously think people should lose their retirement, their homes, for actions they took no part in and no idea of or the illegality of until after the fact?
Obviously you are one of those people who will never invest in anything.
A lot of what you say can and does happen right now. States and federal agencies as well as courts can ban or bar companies from doing business in their jurisdiction. When illegal activity does happen, they do attempt to find who actually did the act and bring them to the full accountability under the law. The problem is that a lot of times, the only way to track who did what is by examining the accounting and internal documentation of a company and by interviewing employees. If the person knows their actions were illegal and covers his tracks, it's very difficult to prove any one person was involved where it's easier to prove that the company they represent was included in the actions causing the violation. This is why you see companies getting fined without people inside them being arrested. It's easier to prove the company is at fault then any specific person inside the company when they cover their tracks. And to that point, any company has an obligation to make sure it's actions and actions taken by it's employees in it's behalf are legal.
It did stop there. What your seeing is complexity of finding out who did something wrong verses pointing the blame on the company they represent. However, it should be noted that the limited liability will only protect asses from actions the owners did not participate in or direct. Anyone breaking the law or taking an action causing a liability is still personally subject to that liability and the penalties of the law. Where the limitations apply is when you do not take an action yourself resulting in that liability. an example of this, you have a working lunch with a few of your employees. Your an owner of a small company incorporated for the specific purpose of liability. Now you drink a couple glasses of wine, and while driving the company car back to the office, you strike a pedestrian, a parked car, and get a DUI in the process. Now you are personally liable for all damages you did as well as the DUI. The company is liable too (generally vicariously). If you have a summer home at the lake, it would be shielded by the corporate limited liability but not by your personal liability. So assuming your sued, the company is sued, and you are both order to pay the differences of a judgment, the company can bankrupt itself but because you took an action and were personally liable, your summer home could be auctioned off to cover the differences in the judgment.
Remember, limitations on liability are only for actions you do not participate in unless a specific law limits your liability (good Samaritan laws, bankruptcy with no wrong doing, and so on).
It's not that the fines is all the courts can do. The problem with locking up a corporation is that it isn't a valid thing outside of a body designed to consolidate responsibility. It doesn't exist or act outside of people operating it and making actions. If someone takes an action that makes a corporation break a law, that person has broken the law and is subjecting themselves to the penalties in law.
The problem here which creates the idea that corporations can't be punished is that many laws concerning corporations do not have jail time as a penalty and it's often difficult to prove who was responsible for the violation in the first place. Here is a scenario to illustrate this. (disclaimer, I used to be in environmental remediation and hazardous waste cleanup and both these scenarios are adaptations of sites I became involved with) Company X does electroplating of metals and plastics and has hazardous wastes. They contract with a company to collect the wastes. A driver transferring the wastes leaves a valve unsecured and loses part of his load mid way through the trip. He knows it's his fault and thinks he would be in serious trouble as he should be so he conceals this loss. Now, fish in a nearby stream start dying and it's traced to a chemical used in electroplating. The wastes disposal manifests are checked and it's determined that 1500 units of waste were shipped with only 1400 units being received over a years time.
Ok, so now we know it was Company X's wastes, they get fined. But we can't track which shipment or who was driving it, or verify that it was loaded in the first place seeing how the loss was concealed. So the driver gets off and company X is responsible for the cleanup plus fines. Remember, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defendant so we have to be able to prove wrong doing and in most cases, we have to prove intentional wrong doing. So if we can't prove which employee screwed up, all we can do is fine the company for not keeping a better eye on their employees which allowed this to happen.
Another illustration, suppose the same raw elements as above are still true except that instead of a driver losing part of a load, we have a field that a CEO decided could save them some money by dumping the product there instead. OK, so the containers in the field start leaking, it's and it's discovered the chemicals are used in the electroplating process (and that the chemicals are from after a time period where is was illegal to dispose of them this way a it wasn't always illegal). The EPA looks at the companies in the area and combs over their disposal records and can't find anything missing. So they look at the tax records and the accounting for the company and finds that Company X did more business then their waste stream would indicate. Now the EPA and Justice department review all communications and work records for the times that the waste stream was light. They interview all the employees that were working there at the times (whether they are still employed or not) and determine that they were busier and should have more wastes and it's likely that the illegally dumped waste is theirs. Now, here is where a pivot-able point comes into play. If they can pinpoint anyone responsible for the illegal dumping, they will be held accountable along with the company and they will face jail time. But if they can't determine who directed the dumping or who actually did it, they are left with fining the company.
However, in either example, if it can be proven that any one person or multiple people did any specific action in violating the law or directing someone to violate the law, they can and will be held responsible for those acts- including jail time if the violation warrants. In a way, this is more punishment availible then for a any other person. Suppose someone was murdered in your back yard, your at work and your neighbor notices the dead body and calls the law. Now they can't prove it was you that did anything and they most likely wouldn't be able to prove who murde
You couldn't be more right except that by defining limited liability, you need to be aware that a corporation will not limit the liabilities of the actors involved with the activity that the liability stems from. In other words, you form a corporation and you work for it. If you wreck the company truck and kill a person, you are personally liable outside the liability of the corporation. The extent of the liability will only be limited by the law and any legal proceedings following your participation in the act.
The main benefit of a corporation is that non-participating actors (silent owners, share holders and so on who do not participate in running the corporation) are not obligated to other people's actions independent of their own actions outside the value of the investment. This is a necessary component of our business infrastructure otherwise a 2 billion dollar judgment on a company worth 500 million would result in all the share holder being responsible for the difference. Now think about that, you have 200 shares of company X in your retirement account at the advice of some brokerage firm and your house and property is being sold to satisfy some judgment from an action you have absolutely no control or influence over.
Available but not mandatory.. Hmm.. So the government should be able to choose communications media that is inaccessible to it's citizens and you are fine with that? How about if the government raise your taxes, published the notice in some magazine no one has ever heard of, and when you are expecting a huge return like last year and purchase that new big screen TV, you find out that you actually owe the government some money.
Here the problem. The government chooses to communicate with the citizens and traditionally, services and techniques have become availible for those citizens with special needs. Generally, they are extra devices or software that enables the citizen to gain the communication. Now when the government fails to meet accessibility guidelines, it means these people are shut out or then need 10,000 different devices or programs or have someone violate their privacy to read the shit to them. The government is the government of all the people, not just the ones who aren't freaks or deformed in some way. When the government publishes something, it has to be accessible to all the citizens. The guidelines make that possible with some effort on the person with the disadvantage.
This is a little different then a company not getting it right. You can chose to take your business elsewhere. You can't chose to create a new government in place of the existing one.
Perhaps it would be better if Slashdot created it's own spell check in the preview window. Then I wouldn't have to rely on Fire Fox's.
Anyways, there has been quite a few discussions over spell check either keeping people stupid or making them forget how to spell things when simple typing errors shine through.
BTW, save me a seat at the kiddie table and I'll bring a 12 pack of cheap beer.
Actually, maybe it is you who should read more and quit inferring details you have no idea of.
A court order the ACLU complained they violated because of saying a prayer over the meal. A luncheon and a dinner are the same thing so that point is a little anally ignorant. And no, they didn't get busted for this in the past, the ACLU got a restraining order because one of the teachers had pushed religious views onto the students and they found a handbook suggesting that students conduct themselves in a christian manner. The ACLU took this completely out of line and the judge ruled that way too.
It's a fucking spelling error brought on by spell check suggesting the wrong word and me not checking. The more intelligent people in this thread knew exactly what was being talked about and the fact that you have never head of the pledge of elegance should indicate that it was either a spelling error or it was a topic you knew nothing about and shouldn't have opened you ignorant mouth about.
IF that was the case, then people wouldn't be complaining about the under god and complaining about the pledge itself. The problem you are not getting is that you are learning about the pledge in school, not committing yourself. There is nothing binding about the pledge and most of the intelligent people understand that.
I have no idea why you would think that. What religion does Santa depict? Or better yet, where is the north pole, Santa, reign deer and all that depicted in the christian religion. Also, the entire Chanukka thing was represented at my school pretty well. We even catered to Kwanzaa which is a made up holiday originating in the 1960's for African American kids who were muslim and not christian.
Your ignorance about schools and plays or what Christians do is completely unfounded. You have made the world less intelligent with your comment on something you know nothing about.
It's obvious that the country wouldn't be founded like it was if the compromise wouldn't have happened. I mean some states simply refused to ratify the constitution. Two states even waited until after George Washington was elected as the first president and took office before ratifying the constitution and accepting the compromise.
The divide would have been what later because the south during the civil war and if the north would have compiles a separate country from the south, then it would have taken an unfounded invasion to end slavery in the south. In fact, that probably wouldn't have happened because the south would have been no more important to us then Mexico at the time and we wouldn't have cared how they ran their country as long as they left us alone.
I mean seriously, the entire premise for the abolition of slavery on the largest part of the continental north America would have been removed. The argument doesn't have to win, it just clearly shows how stupid the counter argument is.
I would say more agnostic then anything if anything. I do take devils advocate in religious matters a lot though.
However, I believe that in a free society, you should be free to pursue any religion or no religion at all if you want. I also believe that there shouldn't be many restrictions on that outside of it being your choice and not being forced on your by a government and people are abusing the concept of it to promote their own alternative agenda.
No other country allowed women to vote at the time. Well, not all women with the exception of a few small countries. In fact, there are some that still do not allow them to vote. Furthermore, there are countries in existence today where no one is allowed to vote. Women in New Jersey had the vote since the beginning of the country. Women got the vote nationally within 30 years of most other places.
Why would you think the values held today were reflective back then and why would you assume that our more recent enlightenment is somehow damaging to previous cultures? The fact is, the entire formation of the US is what allowed woman's suffrage to progress in the US. You know, things like free speech and such that wouldn't have been enshrined in a bill of rights had not a compromise happened.
Ehh. spell check did that for us. It isn't the first time, it wom't be the last time, I guess this is what I can expect from an open source browser spell check implementation. Some of the more intelligent people knew what was being said. I'm sorry it cause you so much confusion.
They are notorious for being dead when you need them 8 months after putting the flashlight into the drawer. I'm not sure why that's a surprise to you.
I'm pretty sure I'm in agreement with what you said.
However, the flag pole prayers are generally held outside of school hours like in the morning before school when people are arriving. They show up early and just do it so I'm not sure provisioning of school resources is even involved. At least that is from what I understand. They are open to anyone wishing to participate and nothing forces them to.
A teacher should/will have authority as the courts have ruled that school authority can be assumed at any time on the school grounds. As long as that authority isn't used to promote the prayer event, I see no problems with it. However, I think it would be foolish to basically strip teachers of all authority when they participate in things like this. Situations arise like Kids playing dangerously on playground equipment, fighting, arguing, hazing other students, getting involved with drugs or dangerous object and so on are pretty much the purview of the teachers responsibilities while on school grounds (at to some extent, at least in my state, the school oversees the kids until a parent picks them up or they get home whichever comes first). I know I have been punished in school many times for fighting or cussing someone out on the way to or from school. One time, I cut through a person yard because I was running late and the school made me go back and replant flowers I supposedly killed in the process.
As for the pledge, Yea, take it back. However, I find it foolish to refuse to allow it because of it's mentioning. Many government documents created in the early years of the country and even to this day reference the year of our lord and so on within them Congress starts each day off with a prayer. Taken to the extreme, this entire "if it relates to god or religion in any way" could remove much of US history as well as government and civics from the schools. We already had one school (or was it all of California schools) ban teaching the declaration of independence because it referenced god. Some of the documents reportedly banned were excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, the diaries of George Washington and John Adams, writings from William Penn and various state constitutions.
To be fair though, they claimed the banned documents weren't their entirety, just excerpts used to demonstrate how religion played in the lives of the founding fathers. Still, I think that's a valid discussion model for students. Even if those influences do or do not play a role in the ongoing operation of the US to this day.