It can come to court as soon as they actually make the decision to include it in their purview. If the courts find the law disagrees, the manufacturer would be free to continue.
In fact, if the review of powers itself were enough of a problem, it would grant standing for taking it to court before the decision had been made. The 3 step process in the US of "legislation, executive action, court review" is pretty good, except for all those hundreds of times that all 3 steps fail in their duty.
I know this post is 100% intended as humor, but I'd like to point out that "bad" as in unpleasant, and "bad" as in harmful to mental health aren't necessarily the same.
There are differences. For example, Amazon employees face a zero tolerance policy to talking to each other during work hours. Speak to anyone, lose your job. Now while I'm anti-social as all hell, humans in general aren't, and that's a formula for stress.
That's reasonable to consider, but strong enough correlations say something. Not necessarily causation, but implies a relationship of some kind. Thankfully us plebs are spared the actual p values to make a judgement for ourselves.
Oh, is your employer the one that held a food drive for you because you wouldn't have enough food for thanksgiving with the shitty pay you get, or was that a different wal-mart?
Also, I don't own a kindle, and I'm aware of, and try to avoid the modern slavery in electronics production.
Working at hopelessly automated amazon warehouses where you are treated as a physical automaton with no free will is "similar to" working in a traditional warehouse in the same way ozone is "similar to" O2. It's made of roughly the same thing, but isn't exactly good for you.
I don't think there was a mistake in my reasoning. You didn't point out something I'd never reflected on before. What you just said was obvious to you, right? Why are you assuming it's not obvious to me.
My position is simply that treating property as fundamentally important is a mental short-circuit that can avoid answering difficult but relevant questions sometimes.
I'm not calling for the end of property law in general.
Sure, over-complications of tax-codes exist, and cause all sorts of miscommunications in these debates. Federal, corporate, income taxes make up a sizable majority of all taxes paid.
Sometimes I forget that the adjectives and adverbs I put in front of words tend to get dropped when people parse out the meaning of what I said, but the "intrinsically" is really really really crucial to my point. People can be harmed by the loss of their property, but the property itself isn't important in that, just the harm done.
Ok, explaining myself would be a good way to assume good faith on your part and not make your day harder.
The constitution outlines winner take all majority elections for both the house and (since the 17th amendment) senate. This seems innocuous enough, but countries with stable third parties don't have this system. The reason is game-theory driven. If you split into ideological groups who actually agree and reflect particular perspectives on the world, you'll never make a plurality against a single party of diverse, but aligned-for-convenience groups, in a one-man-one vote. The natural consequence is that anyone concerned with winning elections is going to make such a coalition themselves. This means in every single district, you get one elected representative that vaguely, approximately represents half the people that voted(and this system promotes apathy among those who can find neither party acceptable, making it self-reinforcing), and actively opposed to the other half who tend to be seen as "the enemy".
Countries that run instant run-off like Australia or with proportionate party voting, like France or Canada, have third parties, and much higher voter turnout, and much lower levels of political partisanship.
No, you misunderstand. The harm to people that a deprivation of property represents can represent a serious harm, just not an innate one, that's equal for all people. I just disagree with using property as the intellectual "stopping point" for the exercise of understanding crime, not that it's done at all.
Processes is a synonym of forces. The rest of your post is being excessively defensive about the fact that you(now quite clearly) intentionally chose to misinterpret what I said.
No, we have a 2 party system because in winner-take-all district-based elections, all losers lose equally, which naturally drives forces towards as few coalitions as possible. It's a broken design for a complex, nuanced world with lots of different belief systems.
It also contributes to corruption(because when you're not representing just one point of view in your candidacy, money makes more and more difference), populism, and pandering.
You understand that "forces that drive" isn't the same as a "clause that states", right? I mean, I was pretty clear in my wording, you'd have to be pretty obtuse to intentionally misread that.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the black market potential of low-cost DNA kits can't really hold out where there are other legal DNA tests available.
It can come to court as soon as they actually make the decision to include it in their purview. If the courts find the law disagrees, the manufacturer would be free to continue.
In fact, if the review of powers itself were enough of a problem, it would grant standing for taking it to court before the decision had been made. The 3 step process in the US of "legislation, executive action, court review" is pretty good, except for all those hundreds of times that all 3 steps fail in their duty.
You can market all you want to the Bahama market then. Marketing related to health in the U.S. is faced with certain proscriptions.
I know this post is 100% intended as humor, but I'd like to point out that "bad" as in unpleasant, and "bad" as in harmful to mental health aren't necessarily the same.
There are differences. For example, Amazon employees face a zero tolerance policy to talking to each other during work hours. Speak to anyone, lose your job. Now while I'm anti-social as all hell, humans in general aren't, and that's a formula for stress.
They ship all sorts of unwieldy and unusual things. Even a perfectly automated warehouse would need "problem solvers."
That's reasonable to consider, but strong enough correlations say something. Not necessarily causation, but implies a relationship of some kind. Thankfully us plebs are spared the actual p values to make a judgement for ourselves.
Oh, is your employer the one that held a food drive for you because you wouldn't have enough food for thanksgiving with the shitty pay you get, or was that a different wal-mart?
Also, I don't own a kindle, and I'm aware of, and try to avoid the modern slavery in electronics production.
Working at hopelessly automated amazon warehouses where you are treated as a physical automaton with no free will is "similar to" working in a traditional warehouse in the same way ozone is "similar to" O2. It's made of roughly the same thing, but isn't exactly good for you.
Oh, but he sure cast himself as an ubermench. The deciding about who's "best" would be done by far from perfect people.
No, I just mean what I say, not what delusional idiots pretend I say.
Damn but those goalposts are hard to hit when they keep dancing around like that.
If that's your position then you clearly fucking lied when you said you knew what "intrinsically" means. Congrats on lying.
The less corny Blizzard games got, the less interesting I found them(even without never-going-to-buy-it DRM questions)
It doesn't negate my point, it's contrary evidence. Those aren't the same in a subjective world.
I don't think there was a mistake in my reasoning. You didn't point out something I'd never reflected on before. What you just said was obvious to you, right? Why are you assuming it's not obvious to me.
My position is simply that treating property as fundamentally important is a mental short-circuit that can avoid answering difficult but relevant questions sometimes.
I'm not calling for the end of property law in general.
No, I really doubt it is.
Sure, over-complications of tax-codes exist, and cause all sorts of miscommunications in these debates. Federal, corporate, income taxes make up a sizable majority of all taxes paid.
Sometimes I forget that the adjectives and adverbs I put in front of words tend to get dropped when people parse out the meaning of what I said, but the "intrinsically" is really really really crucial to my point. People can be harmed by the loss of their property, but the property itself isn't important in that, just the harm done.
Ok, explaining myself would be a good way to assume good faith on your part and not make your day harder.
The constitution outlines winner take all majority elections for both the house and (since the 17th amendment) senate. This seems innocuous enough, but countries with stable third parties don't have this system. The reason is game-theory driven. If you split into ideological groups who actually agree and reflect particular perspectives on the world, you'll never make a plurality against a single party of diverse, but aligned-for-convenience groups, in a one-man-one vote. The natural consequence is that anyone concerned with winning elections is going to make such a coalition themselves. This means in every single district, you get one elected representative that vaguely, approximately represents half the people that voted(and this system promotes apathy among those who can find neither party acceptable, making it self-reinforcing), and actively opposed to the other half who tend to be seen as "the enemy".
Countries that run instant run-off like Australia or with proportionate party voting, like France or Canada, have third parties, and much higher voter turnout, and much lower levels of political partisanship.
No, you misunderstand. The harm to people that a deprivation of property represents can represent a serious harm, just not an innate one, that's equal for all people. I just disagree with using property as the intellectual "stopping point" for the exercise of understanding crime, not that it's done at all.
Processes is a synonym of forces. The rest of your post is being excessively defensive about the fact that you(now quite clearly) intentionally chose to misinterpret what I said.
Yes, absolutely, and quite frequently wrong. Just not violent.
No, we have a 2 party system because in winner-take-all district-based elections, all losers lose equally, which naturally drives forces towards as few coalitions as possible. It's a broken design for a complex, nuanced world with lots of different belief systems.
It also contributes to corruption(because when you're not representing just one point of view in your candidacy, money makes more and more difference), populism, and pandering.
You understand that "forces that drive" isn't the same as a "clause that states", right? I mean, I was pretty clear in my wording, you'd have to be pretty obtuse to intentionally misread that.
Yeah, if taxes were at 50%, sure. They're not.