I wanted to safely account for unreported amputees. Though considering the possibility of a swarm of unreported double amputees I should probably have played it safe and just said at least 4 million. Unless you think dogs are people too. In which case I should have said at least 2 million.
That's a rough call. There are two aspects to it I think. The first is intent. If there is no intent, it's not murder, though it's debatably manslaughter depending on the circumstances. The second is (for lack of a better term) causality. Can it be proven that you knew or should have known that your actions would cause someone's death, and can it be proven that your actions were a necessary contributing factor to the death (in other words, is there a likelihood that it would have happened anyway without you doing anything?). I suppose that still leaves us with an unpleasantly large gray area. We might have to settle for the Potter Stewart approach ("I know it when I see it"). I don't think in this case Palin is criminally responsible, but I'm not sure I could define what exact words she could say that would be just enough to cross the line.
As I understand it, if you take actions that are intended to lead to someone's death you can be charged with murder, regardless of whether that action is pulling the trigger yourself, paying someone else to pull the trigger, or somehow manipulating another person to do it. This is IMHO the correct way to handle these things. Do you feel that Manson is not criminally responsible for those deaths?
Something. I remember him in the '92 democratic primaries. His big thing was pitching a 13% across the board flat income tax (in place of existing income tax).
Honestly, I don't care if there are 800,000 alcohol-related road fatalities each year.
I mostly agree with you but I'm obsessively compelled to play devil's advocate. So I'll ask this: Is there a tipping point for you? Would 4 million alcohol related road fatalities a year persuade you? 20 mil? 50 mil? If not, is there a point where you would advocate a measure akin to a mandatory checkpoint or is there no threshold that would overcome your viewpoint?
These RFIDs can be read at any point-of-sale cash register. No? Give the government a year or so
Someday, but a year? Not even close. There are plenty of retailers still using pre-broadband POS systems. Eventually they all get swapped out, but a year is optimistic (or pessimistic given your POV) even for the ones that go cutting edge. This stuff moves slowwwwwwwwwwwwly.
One of my father's favorite stories is about a time he brought his car to a body shop to get a dent fixed. It was a dent in the trunk, roughly the size of a basketball. The guy wanted $450 to fix it (this was many years ago, so inflate to whatever sounds appropriate). He declined. When he got back home and took another look at it, he got pissed off about the whole thing and slammed his fist into the trunk... which caused most of the dent to pop back into place. What was left was closer to the size of a tennis ball. He went back to the same guy a week later and they quoted him $50 for it. He's always referred to it as his $400 punch.
I can give you the short version from a conversation with my wife: "If I could make cars completely safe but now cars would cost $30 million each, would that be better?"
Honestly, most of the time I don't care too much about people's grammar and/or spelling errors, but I got the giggles when I thought of a diplomat "effecting" people.
When I was going through those awkward teenage years I got curious, like pretty much every other guy ever born. But, unlike those unlucky enought to be born before the internet, I had a safe place to experiment and explore - somewhere I could get away from with the yank of a power cord, complete with anonymity and free from labels.
This might be a bit of a shocker, but porn actually predates the internet.
I'm really confused by the Slashdot ethics sometimes.
If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.
It's not confusing, and the position taken by many slashdotters is more consistent then you seem to want to think. The main distinction is what the infringing party does with it. Infringement for commercial profit (which is what happened here) is rarely if ever supported. Infringement for personal use is tolerated by some, rationalized by many others, and (though many pretend not to notice) villainized by a segment too. Additionally, if I think that *AA studies vastly overstate the effects of 'piracy' or that the awards given by some lawsuits are excessive and well beyond the damage done, it doesn't mean that I condone infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
I wanted to safely account for unreported amputees. Though considering the possibility of a swarm of unreported double amputees I should probably have played it safe and just said at least 4 million. Unless you think dogs are people too. In which case I should have said at least 2 million.
8 million feet = somewhere between 4-8 million people.
Article would have been way more awesome without the word "Prize"
The Christmas tree is another take away as what does a tree have to do with the birth of the savior?
The fir tree had nothing to do with Christmas until St. Boniface, who used it to replace Thor's sacred tree (which was not a fir tree).
That's a rough call. There are two aspects to it I think. The first is intent. If there is no intent, it's not murder, though it's debatably manslaughter depending on the circumstances. The second is (for lack of a better term) causality. Can it be proven that you knew or should have known that your actions would cause someone's death, and can it be proven that your actions were a necessary contributing factor to the death (in other words, is there a likelihood that it would have happened anyway without you doing anything?). I suppose that still leaves us with an unpleasantly large gray area. We might have to settle for the Potter Stewart approach ("I know it when I see it"). I don't think in this case Palin is criminally responsible, but I'm not sure I could define what exact words she could say that would be just enough to cross the line.
As I understand it, if you take actions that are intended to lead to someone's death you can be charged with murder, regardless of whether that action is pulling the trigger yourself, paying someone else to pull the trigger, or somehow manipulating another person to do it. This is IMHO the correct way to handle these things. Do you feel that Manson is not criminally responsible for those deaths?
Something. I remember him in the '92 democratic primaries. His big thing was pitching a 13% across the board flat income tax (in place of existing income tax).
For a brief moment the thought crossed my mind that you might not have caught his reference. And then I noticed your ID...
I've had so many unused mod points lately, and now when I need them I don't have any. Thanks for the tip though.
2061 and 3001 are hopefully forever left to the readers imagination.
They unfortunately made it as far as some readers' imagination, rather than just staying in Arthur C. Clarke's.
Honestly, I don't care if there are 800,000 alcohol-related road fatalities each year.
I mostly agree with you but I'm obsessively compelled to play devil's advocate. So I'll ask this: Is there a tipping point for you? Would 4 million alcohol related road fatalities a year persuade you? 20 mil? 50 mil? If not, is there a point where you would advocate a measure akin to a mandatory checkpoint or is there no threshold that would overcome your viewpoint?
These RFIDs can be read at any point-of-sale cash register. No? Give the government a year or so
Someday, but a year? Not even close. There are plenty of retailers still using pre-broadband POS systems. Eventually they all get swapped out, but a year is optimistic (or pessimistic given your POV) even for the ones that go cutting edge. This stuff moves slowwwwwwwwwwwwly.
Well then, we should go and check on who the submitter is and blame that guy.
Fucking SatPhones, why can't they make it work?
TFA article
I believe you mean "The TFA article"
One of my father's favorite stories is about a time he brought his car to a body shop to get a dent fixed. It was a dent in the trunk, roughly the size of a basketball. The guy wanted $450 to fix it (this was many years ago, so inflate to whatever sounds appropriate). He declined. When he got back home and took another look at it, he got pissed off about the whole thing and slammed his fist into the trunk... which caused most of the dent to pop back into place. What was left was closer to the size of a tennis ball. He went back to the same guy a week later and they quoted him $50 for it. He's always referred to it as his $400 punch.
If I said "The sperm whale has a giant penis".
That's also concise and to the point.
've heard "rape" in Sweden is not wearing a condom...
Which would make the overwhelming majority of new Swedes the product of unreported rapes?
I can give you the short version from a conversation with my wife: "If I could make cars completely safe but now cars would cost $30 million each, would that be better?"
I'm curious as to what NASA has to do with this, Mono Lake being in California and all.
Honestly, most of the time I don't care too much about people's grammar and/or spelling errors, but I got the giggles when I thought of a diplomat "effecting" people.
You underestimate my grammatical pedantry.
Diplomats, on the other hand, make decisions that effect the lives of thousands, if not millions
Even with a harem I'd be surprised if any diplomats are effecting the lives of more a hundred or so.
When I was going through those awkward teenage years I got curious, like pretty much every other guy ever born. But, unlike those unlucky enought to be born before the internet, I had a safe place to experiment and explore - somewhere I could get away from with the yank of a power cord, complete with anonymity and free from labels.
This might be a bit of a shocker, but porn actually predates the internet.
I'm really confused by the Slashdot ethics sometimes.
If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.
It's not confusing, and the position taken by many slashdotters is more consistent then you seem to want to think. The main distinction is what the infringing party does with it. Infringement for commercial profit (which is what happened here) is rarely if ever supported. Infringement for personal use is tolerated by some, rationalized by many others, and (though many pretend not to notice) villainized by a segment too. Additionally, if I think that *AA studies vastly overstate the effects of 'piracy' or that the awards given by some lawsuits are excessive and well beyond the damage done, it doesn't mean that I condone infringement.