It would deter others from doing similar things, that is, leaving a loaded firearm accessible to a child. This would be in line with the utilitarian theory of punishment. In the retributivist stance we should punish him, because he committed involuntary manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide if TN is MPC.
Your view of why the law punishes is wrong. Go read Joshua Dressler's "Cases and Materials on Criminal Law" Fifth Edition chapter two. Remorse may be used to reduce a sentence but is never an excuse.
Um, you not read the whole article? The music and Limbaugh didn't have long term effects; however, when they used angry beetle sounds they could cause the beetles to attack one another. They did exactly what you wanted. The music Limbaugh focus is the story hook to get readers. The science is there.
He was president of the Harvard Law Review his second year. Getting on a law review isn't cake and becoming president, especially at Harvard, is a huge fucking accomplishment. Besides, he graduated magna cum laude. No transcript necessary to know that he means he was really good at a really good law school.
Correct. EA understands loyalty only too well. They understand loyalty to a brand or series, but try to avoid loyalty to any specific iteration. The methods they use to foster this type of loyalty is ham-fisted, but most gamers don't care.
A free society will always be vulnerable in some way. This didn't prove anything except that the American people will need to give up more freedom if they want to feel safer. I don't, but I guess I'm not the one the terrorists are trying to influence.
Especially when it's just a simple mistake. You download a shite game demo. Deleted. I don't need the cops, even though I live right next to them, to come check my damn work.
Yucca Mountain will probably never be used, because the Obama administration has said it won't and is looking to cut all funding. However, the WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) seems like a better idea anyway.
Giving praise does not mean you're no longer critical of the government. Governments are like dogs, give praise when they do little things right so they will do bigger things right. Correct them when they do things wrong so they will do them right. This is a small step that could lead to more open source in government, why not tell them you like it and ask for more?
This is a good first step, but I doubt any of us have forgotten/forgiven who is 2 and 3 and the DoJ.
Didn't you know, God doesn't recognize anything that isn't first certified by the US Government. It's all in the Gospel of Americus. I'm sorry, I meant the Gospel of The United States of Americus. Wouldn't want to include any other Americii in there. Chapter Two strictly forbids it stating, "North Americus is the only Americus for Jesus and me."
Anyway, you're right, the government should just use Civil Unions for everyone so they're not certifying anything for God.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress is an intentional tort.
Elements:
1. Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
2. Defendantâ(TM)s conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
3. Defendantâ(TM)s act is the cause of the distress; and
4. Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendantâ(TM)s conduct.
Krugman is of the opinion that the economic crisis will come back when the government spending is done. You're thinking of Jim Cramer who thinks it's over.
Sorry, don't have the original article by Krugman, don't really follow him, but the relevant part is at the beginning.
"He [Cramer] refuted an article by noted New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who argued the economy is slowly getting worse. According to Krugman and others skeptical of the market's recent rally, the economy is simply being propped up by government spending and will return to March lows as that spending wanes. But Cramer asked his viewers pointedly, 'Are things slowing getting worse for you?'"
It seems "experts" in economics, uh, aren't. At least not all the time.
Your post makes more baseless assertions than I can readily count, and on top of that you seem to consider "carbon sequestration" a source of energy.
No, I use carbon sequestering to mean we can continue to use coal as a major source of energy and can open up the oil shale for use in cars. If you can't sequester the CO2 it doesn't matter how much of oil or coal you have there will always be stiff resistance to use every bit of it. CO2 sequestering helps eliminate that resistance.
My problem with that WSJ article is that it assumes energy production will not change before 2020. Basically, the CO2 output of a energy production plant will remain constant. The point of the legislation is to encourage (or force if you prefer) a switch to renewable energy and/or CO2 sequestering. If we do the green revolution in earnest we'll get a lot of our energy from green sources which will fall well under the CO2 limits thereby not succumbing to the tax hits. Today's conventional energy production facilities should be working on CO2 sequestering and by 2020 (when the really strict CO2 limits come into effect) they should be under as well. Energy moguls don't want to change because it costs them money. Average Americans don't want to change because they don't see why they should, don't really understand the effects of the legislation and don't want to pay a cent more. Both want things to go back to the way they were. That is not ever going to happen. If you want cheap energy we need wind, solar, nuclear, tidal, algae and carbon sequestering. We need more sources of energy. Killing this legislation doesn't make that need go away.
Slashdot Mirror
It would deter others from doing similar things, that is, leaving a loaded firearm accessible to a child. This would be in line with the utilitarian theory of punishment. In the retributivist stance we should punish him, because he committed involuntary manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide if TN is MPC.
Your view of why the law punishes is wrong. Go read Joshua Dressler's "Cases and Materials on Criminal Law" Fifth Edition chapter two. Remorse may be used to reduce a sentence but is never an excuse.
The article says the father left a loaded handgun out on a table. That's putting it away far enough?
Come on, this is Slashdot. It's got to be ConHugeCo.
Sincerely,
Lee VanPetite
Um, you not read the whole article? The music and Limbaugh didn't have long term effects; however, when they used angry beetle sounds they could cause the beetles to attack one another. They did exactly what you wanted. The music Limbaugh focus is the story hook to get readers. The science is there.
He was president of the Harvard Law Review his second year. Getting on a law review isn't cake and becoming president, especially at Harvard, is a huge fucking accomplishment. Besides, he graduated magna cum laude. No transcript necessary to know that he means he was really good at a really good law school.
He's only homeless in that he moved out of his house into his car to get away from the EMF.
That's unbelievable.
Everybody loves EMF
Correct. EA understands loyalty only too well. They understand loyalty to a brand or series, but try to avoid loyalty to any specific iteration. The methods they use to foster this type of loyalty is ham-fisted, but most gamers don't care.
A free society will always be vulnerable in some way. This didn't prove anything except that the American people will need to give up more freedom if they want to feel safer. I don't, but I guess I'm not the one the terrorists are trying to influence.
Hey, man! That'll be $50. Um, for the IP infringement, unless you're not a cop.
Heavy? You keep saying things are "heavy." Is there something wrong with the gravity in your LHC blackhole created alternate universe?
Especially when it's just a simple mistake. You download a shite game demo. Deleted. I don't need the cops, even though I live right next to them, to come check my damn work.
Yes, he's the guy that can't sit up straight like his mother told him to.
Not sure why that bothers the shit out of me. He's hunched over like homo erectus trying to start a fire for the whole damn commercial.
Yucca Mountain will probably never be used, because the Obama administration has said it won't and is looking to cut all funding. However, the WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) seems like a better idea anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPP
Giving praise does not mean you're no longer critical of the government. Governments are like dogs, give praise when they do little things right so they will do bigger things right. Correct them when they do things wrong so they will do them right. This is a small step that could lead to more open source in government, why not tell them you like it and ask for more?
This is a good first step, but I doubt any of us have forgotten/forgiven who is 2 and 3 and the DoJ.
Didn't you know, God doesn't recognize anything that isn't first certified by the US Government. It's all in the Gospel of Americus. I'm sorry, I meant the Gospel of The United States of Americus. Wouldn't want to include any other Americii in there. Chapter Two strictly forbids it stating, "North Americus is the only Americus for Jesus and me."
Anyway, you're right, the government should just use Civil Unions for everyone so they're not certifying anything for God.
Direct2Drive is owned by IGN which is owned by News Corporation. Big company but not a big parent publisher.
EA does not own Valve Software. They may distribute retail versions of the software, but EA does not own Valve.
I guess it would depend on who we're going to send there.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress is an intentional tort.
Elements:
1. Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
2. Defendantâ(TM)s conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
3. Defendantâ(TM)s act is the cause of the distress; and
4. Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendantâ(TM)s conduct.
No involuntary or forced contact necessary.
Krugman is of the opinion that the economic crisis will come back when the government spending is done. You're thinking of Jim Cramer who thinks it's over.
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/story/10569659/1/cramers-mad-money-recap-cramer-vs-krugman-update-1.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
Sorry, don't have the original article by Krugman, don't really follow him, but the relevant part is at the beginning.
"He [Cramer] refuted an article by noted New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who argued the economy is slowly getting worse.
According to Krugman and others skeptical of the market's recent rally, the economy is simply being propped up by government spending and will return to March lows as that spending wanes. But Cramer asked his viewers pointedly, 'Are things slowing getting worse for you?'"
It seems "experts" in economics, uh, aren't. At least not all the time.
Your post makes more baseless assertions than I can readily count, and on top of that you seem to consider "carbon sequestration" a source of energy.
No, I use carbon sequestering to mean we can continue to use coal as a major source of energy and can open up the oil shale for use in cars. If you can't sequester the CO2 it doesn't matter how much of oil or coal you have there will always be stiff resistance to use every bit of it. CO2 sequestering helps eliminate that resistance.
My problem with that WSJ article is that it assumes energy production will not change before 2020. Basically, the CO2 output of a energy production plant will remain constant. The point of the legislation is to encourage (or force if you prefer) a switch to renewable energy and/or CO2 sequestering. If we do the green revolution in earnest we'll get a lot of our energy from green sources which will fall well under the CO2 limits thereby not succumbing to the tax hits. Today's conventional energy production facilities should be working on CO2 sequestering and by 2020 (when the really strict CO2 limits come into effect) they should be under as well. Energy moguls don't want to change because it costs them money. Average Americans don't want to change because they don't see why they should, don't really understand the effects of the legislation and don't want to pay a cent more. Both want things to go back to the way they were. That is not ever going to happen. If you want cheap energy we need wind, solar, nuclear, tidal, algae and carbon sequestering. We need more sources of energy. Killing this legislation doesn't make that need go away.
If this movie doesn't work they'll have to give them the newest Hollywood movie: Bruno. That should fly well over there.
Either way It's a Trap!
No, why take two sure-sellers and put them into one?