Absolutely, accountants uses average salary data for determining the maximum a position should pay is, meaning a group of major companies colluding hurts every single person in this field.
The fuck does the political alignment of the douchebags involved have to do with the economic policies that allow the abuse.
If you have a party that says "repeal all murder laws" and a party that says "murder laws are okay, we should maybe have them"(the political economic balance in the US). You shouldn't be going "Ha! At least one murderer was for the anti-murder party." as if it settles the issue. It's retarded.
With this, then they can't double dip. They wouldn't be sell the popular ones, while dumping the unpopular ones on netflix for the fees. And there might be incentives other than spectacle and marketing in the development of movies, and we can't have that either.
Right, but with respect to a task directly related to ones own job, such as the handling of classified information, the threshold for ignorance is way higher. I'm far more inclined to hold a CPA accountable for tax fraud than a short order chef.
What's your magic bullet to fix people being improperly prosecuted? Because it sounds like it's "oh just dismantle the entire government" as if that prevents all injustice somehow.
In context, what do they have to do with anything? We're talking about a specific legal concept, considered to be created by the right to jury trial, not the intangible, intuitive rights, like the right to pick your friends.
I swear, the "you're forgetting the 9th amendment" cockroaches climb out for the places where they can be as wrong as possible. The point of the ninth amendment was to prevent people from passing laws of the form: "It's not forbidden to trod on gay rights to marry in the constitution, therefor such laws are a-okay and don't infringe anyone's rights in any way" It, specifically does not outline powers like jury nullification.
Also while we're here: the 10th amendment doesn't reserve the power of states to deny free speech or secede, it doesn't grant people the power to be "sovereign citizens." It doesn't make it so states can do whatever they feel like, as long as it's not something the feds can do(much as people like to read it as such). It just outlines the basic principle of federalism, in case some people would look at the unamended constitution and go "yep that's all there's ever going to be."
A. Your job is to import things, so you don't even begin to understand or acknowledge the laws of countries you're importing things from. That site: you're an innocent victim of Hondouras' export laws through the Lacey act Reality: it's specifically your job to understand these things on behalf of your clients(especially since the Lacey act is number two most important law related to your career).
B. You're in trouble for creating a website that links to terrorist websites That site: Actually we totally admit that a court threw it out, and you didn't "commit a felony" at all. Reality: See above.
I mean, every single "case" they give is someone being completely irresponsible(No snowmobiling through a protected wilderness area isn't "harmless"). No, blatantly reneging on your employment contract isn't "an honest mistake"
I don't agree with every single law and interpretation of laws that comes through the government, but that site is basically pretending we should as a basis of its perspective. Or that miscarriages of justice will never occur in some libertarian fantasy land. It's silly.
Jury nullification is a civil right ruled to be protected by the constitution, implicitly not explicitly. It's not like there's a line in the 6th amendment that says "juries can decide laws aren't right."
All these posts have the caveat of "with perfect play"
Human play is about creating mental shortcuts that create useful heuristics for "winningness", and developing those shortcuts is most of the fun to be had.
Uh, no selective application of the law is the entire purpose of trials. Using circumstance, evidence, and judgement to determine whether the law can and should apply.
"Oh yes, let's ignore the man whose writings were the primary basis for most modern systems of governments and the very idea of rights when discussing rights" Can do.
I can also ignore you because I value your opinions even less than his.
That's the thing though. Having a clearance and releasing documents you should know should be classified is a crime on the books. Keeping evidence out of court should be a point against the prosecution, but it likely won't be because juries are dumb.
But they do need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they released something they knew was potentially secret intelligence.
I got moved to open office while still doing the same job. My productivity plummetted. I spend more time on slashdot than ever before because it's the only thing I can actually focus on.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to believe this, because it reinforces my own biases, but it's sounds incredible, so I can't justify accepting it as true.
Absolutely, accountants uses average salary data for determining the maximum a position should pay is, meaning a group of major companies colluding hurts every single person in this field.
The fuck does the political alignment of the douchebags involved have to do with the economic policies that allow the abuse.
If you have a party that says "repeal all murder laws" and a party that says "murder laws are okay, we should maybe have them"(the political economic balance in the US). You shouldn't be going "Ha! At least one murderer was for the anti-murder party." as if it settles the issue. It's retarded.
With this, then they can't double dip. They wouldn't be sell the popular ones, while dumping the unpopular ones on netflix for the fees. And there might be incentives other than spectacle and marketing in the development of movies, and we can't have that either.
Which is why I said "habitable zone + Miller Urey" is more plausible.
And what "chemicals" do you think venus lacks that early earth didn't? I mean, it's not like carbon dioxide and nitrogen aren't present here.
We have Mercury and Venus as counter-examples. Why aren't they teeming with even more life.
I mean, I like the neat simplicity of the idea, but the "habitable zone + Miller Urey" is a more plausible theory.
They used lead solder back in those days
You mean I shouldn't give babies pacifiers made of 8086 boards?
Right, but with respect to a task directly related to ones own job, such as the handling of classified information, the threshold for ignorance is way higher. I'm far more inclined to hold a CPA accountable for tax fraud than a short order chef.
What's your magic bullet to fix people being improperly prosecuted? Because it sounds like it's "oh just dismantle the entire government" as if that prevents all injustice somehow.
In context, what do they have to do with anything? We're talking about a specific legal concept, considered to be created by the right to jury trial, not the intangible, intuitive rights, like the right to pick your friends.
I swear, the "you're forgetting the 9th amendment" cockroaches climb out for the places where they can be as wrong as possible. The point of the ninth amendment was to prevent people from passing laws of the form: "It's not forbidden to trod on gay rights to marry in the constitution, therefor such laws are a-okay and don't infringe anyone's rights in any way" It, specifically does not outline powers like jury nullification.
Also while we're here: the 10th amendment doesn't reserve the power of states to deny free speech or secede, it doesn't grant people the power to be "sovereign citizens." It doesn't make it so states can do whatever they feel like, as long as it's not something the feds can do(much as people like to read it as such). It just outlines the basic principle of federalism, in case some people would look at the unamended constitution and go "yep that's all there's ever going to be."
errrrrrrrrr... They are the government. Just not the part that's doing the spying.
That doesn't explain why a government watchdog would, then.
Who was I disagreeing with?
Wow, is that site bullshit laden.
A. Your job is to import things, so you don't even begin to understand or acknowledge the laws of countries you're importing things from.
That site: you're an innocent victim of Hondouras' export laws through the Lacey act
Reality: it's specifically your job to understand these things on behalf of your clients(especially since the Lacey act is number two most important law related to your career).
B. You're in trouble for creating a website that links to terrorist websites
That site: Actually we totally admit that a court threw it out, and you didn't "commit a felony" at all.
Reality: See above.
I mean, every single "case" they give is someone being completely irresponsible(No snowmobiling through a protected wilderness area isn't "harmless"). No, blatantly reneging on your employment contract isn't "an honest mistake"
I don't agree with every single law and interpretation of laws that comes through the government, but that site is basically pretending we should as a basis of its perspective. Or that miscarriages of justice will never occur in some libertarian fantasy land. It's silly.
I just like clarifying.
I tend to play games with friends.
Jury nullification is a civil right ruled to be protected by the constitution, implicitly not explicitly. It's not like there's a line in the 6th amendment that says "juries can decide laws aren't right."
All these posts have the caveat of "with perfect play"
Human play is about creating mental shortcuts that create useful heuristics for "winningness", and developing those shortcuts is most of the fun to be had.
The person who was handling them, and is facing judgement did have that clearance.
Okay, so they didn't break the law as it was written then.
Uh, no selective application of the law is the entire purpose of trials. Using circumstance, evidence, and judgement to determine whether the law can and should apply.
"Oh yes, let's ignore the man whose writings were the primary basis for most modern systems of governments and the very idea of rights when discussing rights"
Can do.
I can also ignore you because I value your opinions even less than his.
That's the thing though. Having a clearance and releasing documents you should know should be classified is a crime on the books. Keeping evidence out of court should be a point against the prosecution, but it likely won't be because juries are dumb.
But they do need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they released something they knew was potentially secret intelligence.
I've noticed it doesn't impair slash-dotting at all.
I got moved to open office while still doing the same job. My productivity plummetted. I spend more time on slashdot than ever before because it's the only thing I can actually focus on.