Unforutnately, it's a lot easier to push a sob story over a jury than appeal to the actual laws.
I would whole heartedly disagree with that. I have been a juror on several civil and criminal trials. Every time the jury reached a verdict after a sane and sound deliberative process. The last time it took longer to debate the issue in the jury room than it did to present the trial in the court room.
Those are my personal experiences. More broad studies in both the US and in other nations have shown that the likelihood of getting a fair and impartial trial are significantly greater using the jury system than any other system in practice in the last two centuries (we only have reliable data on all point for so far back).
Without fail, every time I have ever heard this accusation of a wrongfull verdict due to a biased jury, after examination, it has been proven to be nothing more than FUD. If you believe your point to be true, please present a specific case. We can both examine the case in detail, including all evidence presented at the trial, all testimony presented, all statues and precedents under common law. We can, in detail, discuss the issue. I would bet my life savings that without fail, any case you found, after full review of the facts presented during the trial, would stand up as having the correct ruling.
After much research I think I agree with you on the speech part.
Specifically it appears that any "legislative act" taken by a congressmen or anything/one under their direction (for that legislative act) would be protected (specifically this includes their staff). Also it appears that this includes an immunity from action by congress (criminal or civil but not procedural).
Also it turns out that the "arrest" reference was only to Civil arrests and not criminal arrests (civil arrests don't happen any more).
Again, this is voluntary for each nation. True they would no longer be a member of the WTO, a voluntary group. Also the penalties are voluntary. At any point any member nation can say, "NO" and not be subject to anything.
And again, the 50 year limit of foreign IP is a voluntary agreement. Any member nation can decide to leave the WTO and ignore foreign IP rights.
Please, PLEASE, look into treaties. Even the Wikipedia page explains most of this. A treaty is only binding if your nation WANTS to be binding. (I count being forced under threat to be wanting, as the nation still has the choice.)
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
The article explicitly states that the immunity is not valid if the Congressman is committing a felony. If they are divulging classified information (a felony) while giving speech on the floor of the House, they may be arrested. This is very clear.
The Executive branch apsolutly can file charges against a member of Congress for such actions as we have discussed (it has been done in the past).
The Congressman would then have the right to state that they are immune from prosecution by virtue of Article I Section 6 (or many other such allowances).
It would then be up to the Judicial branch to rule on the validity of the immunity. They could allow the trial or dismiss it depending on the facts of the case. (Although I could not find an instance where the immunity was not upheld.)
It is the beauty of the checks and balance system; no one branch of the government is immune from actions of the others.
As I have pointed out many times, any nation can, at any time, withdraw from a treaty they are a part of.
If any nation decided they wanted shorter limits they simply have to change any applicable national laws, then withdraw from the treaty. A nation could also just ignore the treaty as well. (Very few countries place treaty agreements higher than national laws like the US does. In most nations when a treaty is signed, it has no force of law until the member nation creates a set of national laws covering the agreement.)
If the information was classified, it is a felony under US Federal law to disclose that information to a non-privileged person. That would be why you do not see any Congressman from disclosing stuff for political profit.
In this case, I doubt that the text of the treaty is under any such classification in the US. In addition several rulings have made it clear that no enforceable law can be kept secrete. A treaty may or may not qualify under those grounds though. Again this would only apply to the United States.
For a fun example of such an event watch, Point of Order, the documentary on the Senate-Army McCarthy hearings. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_Order_%28film%29) Or just look into McCarthy's investigations.
I agree with most of what you said. The only exception is the "it would not be a major cost". Even if you only NEED to print 10 pages per month for every person, at a University with 10,000 students and faculty, that adds up to 1.2 million pages per year. If you can reduce a per page cost by 10% that is a significant cost savings.
My guess is that the change in email font is only part of a large change across many fronts in order to reduce costs. (A similar change of the default font used in Word and other word processors would have a even greater impact I would assume.)
There will always be times you will need to print an email.
A recent example came up at work recently. We had a design meeting between many people/departments at my work. I had pertinent notes in an email that needed to be at the meeting. The option was to setup a A/V system to display the email then forward copies to everyone, or I could print ten copies and hand them out.
The second option took me less than 10 seconds (including waiting for them to print and walking over to pick them up). During the meeting many of the emails became impromptu notebooks and are now covered with all kinds of additions or alterations to the design. (which was more useful to me to have the notes ON the design instead of on a blank piece of paper.)
On top of being less work, many employees have eye issues and may find it easier to read the paper document in front of them than what is a projected screen (our office manger is an example). Lastly there are many locations that you simply can't setup electronic displays (at a restaurant during a lunch time meeting for example).
Lieberman is an independent not a Democrat. He left the Democratic party after the 2004 elections.
Most people in the Executive branch are career employees. They don't suddenly switch when a new President gets elected. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the Federal Government has a yearly turnover rate of about 7.1%. Meaning that of the approximate 2,000,000 current Federal employees, about 1.86 million served during the previous administration. Other studies show that the majority of turnover is to lower positions and due to being promoted to higher positions.
In short, most of the people rejecting those FIOS petitions now, are the same people who were rejecting FIOS petitions four years ago. Many of those same people were probably hired during the Clinton administration for that matter, perhaps even during the Bush (Sr.) administration or even before that.
Also in an irony of ironies, your post got modded interesting instead of troll.
As I have pointed out before, logical constructs ARE math. Boolean algebra in most cases. The following bit of code is a prefect example of code that is both code and a mathematical equation:
IF (bob == true) Then
doSomeThing()
Else
doOtherThing()
End If
As a result, if you can't handle mathematical/logical constructs, you are pretty much worthless as a programmer. The opposite is also true, if you CAN handle logical constructs you ARE good at math. (You just don't know it. =P)
Given that all logical equations are also mathematical equations I would say very clearly, if you can't do math you can't write software. Also, just because your calculus skills are not up to snuff does not mean your Boolean algebra skills are not top notch.
Except that your statement is still not true. Any nation can sign the document and then DO NOTHING. This happens all the time. The signatory still needs to CHOOSE to act upon the treaty, something they could do even if there were no treaty.
Your argument is that a government can do something bad but only if they sign a treaty. The truth of the situation is that, at any point a government can do something bad.
In this case there is nothing stopping any nation from just enacting all the provisions of ACTA into that nations law without ever signing ACTA. In the U.S.'s case that would require a Constitutional Amendment or two, however that is entirely possible.
In short, a treaty is just meaningless paper unless the country decides on its own to act in that manor. It never gives up its sovereignty. It makes a sovereign choice to act in a certain way. At any point it can choose to stop acting in that way. In addition at any point a nation can repudiate a treaty. Again, sovereignty is in no way threatened by a treaty EVER.
Nice summary, but you left out the part after the treaty is signed where a government rams new legislation down the throats of its citizens on the grounds that the previously signed treaty (under secrecy, with little democratic input) obligates the government to pass the Draconian legislation as proposed. Failure to do so will emasculate the country's standing in future treaty negotiations (we won't be regarded as good on our word), so be good little citizens and get out of the way.
My post was to contradict the OP's false statement of:
Understand that a treaty supersedes a nation's sovereignty...
This statement is simply not true.
My point was that a treaty has no force of law. It does not force anyone to do anything. The action of agreeing to a treaty is entirely divorced from the action of enforcing a treaty. Whats more, any action a government could take in the name of a treaty, they could also take WITHOUT the treaty.
As for ACTA it self, I think any negotiations by the US Government that are held from the US Citizen are by definition immoral. What is in the treaty is irrelevant, the fact that the terms were not made public so that each and every American Citizen could weigh in and debate them, preempts any other issue.
Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.
When national security laws are used to cover-up the immoral actions of high-level personnel, Wikileaks *IS* above the law.
I would argue that within the terms you have listed they are not "above the law" but ARE acting within the law. Whats more, they are in those cases, acting in a way specifically protected and sanctioned by that same law.
And remember if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide.
The Supreme Court of the United States would disagree with you (The assumption is that you are being serious). See Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 59 (1949), ULLMANN V. UNITED STATES, 350 U. S. 422 (1956) and Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001) just to list a few.
There is the issue of confessing to something that you did not do. According to the Innocence Project, about 25% of cases exonerated do to new DNA evidence are of this type:
Understand that a treaty supersedes a nation's sovereignty - in effect, you've signed away the right to abjudicate disagreements according to your own law. Those "rights" holders are attempting to dictate to Moscow, Washington, London, and Beijing, just how "intellectual property" will be handled in the future.
A treaty does NOT supersede a nations sovereignty. A treaty is an agreement between one or more countries (there have been single nation treaties signed) where all parties agree to do something. There is not force behind that agreement, each country has to decide that they want to follow the agreement and then do so.
There is no force behind the treaty other than the other nations would be upset. Japan ignored several treaties (and then broke them) prior to WWII. The United States ignored many, many treaties dealing with Indian nations. Both Britain and France have a long list of treaties that were ignored.
The most famous treaty not worth its own paper, would be that acknowledging Belgium's neutrality, signed by Germany (Treaty of London 1839).
If you are a US citizen there is a concern that a signed treaty is a way to side step Constitutional protections. Under the Constitution a treaty has more weight under law than one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights for example. This is of course subject to interpretation by the SCOTUS.
However even in this situation you would still have to have agents of the Government choosing to act on those treaty items. There would be no force of law requiring them to do so. If the President issued an executive order to not-enforce that provision of the treaty there would be little to no consequence (barring political backlash).
In addition, at any time, a nation can withdraw from a treaty. It is sort of like standing up and saying, "hey fellas, I don't care anymore."
I would suggest at least reading the Wikipedia page on treaties for a better understanding of them:
The US Government requires the use of seat belts and airbags. Those are both patented devices. (US Patent #312,085 and US Patent #7,401,807. There are actually several dozen other related patents but these are good examples.)
The FDA requires that certain medical devices be used for certain procedures such as open heart surgery, organ transplants. Almost all medical devices are patented. Also note that most drugs are also patented formulas.
The EPA requires that all manufactures dealing with toxic chemicals uses containment equipment and monitoring devices. Almost all such equipment is patented.
The FAA requires that all plains of a certain size be fitted with all kinds of detection and monitoring devices. Almost all such devices are patented.
Your belief that the government would not require the use of a patented device that is essential to the safe operation of another device is false. Patently false.
Just to be clear, I could spend the next week just LISTING the patented devices that are required to be used by the US government.
Again, this is a liability case. The rules for liability are VERY clear. Patents are irrelevant in this case, nothing more than FUD.
I agree, looking at both sides of the conversation would make it more clear. It still could go either way with this particular bit of text.
I know that one of the links in the article I linked to, did have some of the full text including both sides of the email exchanges. I don't remember seeing the other side of this exchange though.
Liability law has long stated it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that their product is safe. All other issues are irrelevant in this case. It *IS* a liability case.
Please look into liability law. It is very clear.
From the article:
In addition, they claim manufacturers are negligent in failing to adopt a flesh-detecting technology like SawStop's, which has been on the market since 2004.
The issue in this case was whether or not the device lacked a safety mechanism that is considered essential to safely operating the device.
Notice that the issue is NOT should they have used SaftyStop. It is, should we allow the sale of a device that lacks a flesh-detections mechanism (of which several are on the market).
A group of reasonable people then took time to analyzing facts, hearing testimony from all parties, looking at all evidence presented by both parties. They then deliberated until a consensus was formed among them. The then decided that the lack of a flesh detection system constituted negligence under liability law.
If you really think that after the long and contemplative process that brought us this verdict is wrong, why don't you spend the same amount of time and effort formulating your counter argument with facts and reasonable arguments.
If you did, you might just convince me (and others) that your right. Until then, I will put my money on the people who DID devote themselves to analyzing the facts and being impartial.
The company did use better safety standards: they retained the usefulness of the tool by not encumbering it with extra crap that only gets in the way...
Exactly, the part that would have gotten in the way of his hand before it was sawed off...
Slashdot Mirror
Unforutnately, it's a lot easier to push a sob story over a jury than appeal to the actual laws.
I would whole heartedly disagree with that. I have been a juror on several civil and criminal trials. Every time the jury reached a verdict after a sane and sound deliberative process. The last time it took longer to debate the issue in the jury room than it did to present the trial in the court room.
Those are my personal experiences. More broad studies in both the US and in other nations have shown that the likelihood of getting a fair and impartial trial are significantly greater using the jury system than any other system in practice in the last two centuries (we only have reliable data on all point for so far back).
Without fail, every time I have ever heard this accusation of a wrongfull verdict due to a biased jury, after examination, it has been proven to be nothing more than FUD. If you believe your point to be true, please present a specific case. We can both examine the case in detail, including all evidence presented at the trial, all testimony presented, all statues and precedents under common law. We can, in detail, discuss the issue. I would bet my life savings that without fail, any case you found, after full review of the facts presented during the trial, would stand up as having the correct ruling.
After much research I think I agree with you on the speech part.
Specifically it appears that any "legislative act" taken by a congressmen or anything/one under their direction (for that legislative act) would be protected (specifically this includes their staff). Also it appears that this includes an immunity from action by congress (criminal or civil but not procedural).
Also it turns out that the "arrest" reference was only to Civil arrests and not criminal arrests (civil arrests don't happen any more).
Here are the two most informative links:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/21.html
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=John_R._Sand_and_Gravel_v._US
Again, this is voluntary for each nation. True they would no longer be a member of the WTO, a voluntary group. Also the penalties are voluntary. At any point any member nation can say, "NO" and not be subject to anything.
And again, the 50 year limit of foreign IP is a voluntary agreement. Any member nation can decide to leave the WTO and ignore foreign IP rights.
Please, PLEASE, look into treaties. Even the Wikipedia page explains most of this. A treaty is only binding if your nation WANTS to be binding. (I count being forced under threat to be wanting, as the nation still has the choice.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty
The article explicitly states that the immunity is not valid if the Congressman is committing a felony. If they are divulging classified information (a felony) while giving speech on the floor of the House, they may be arrested. This is very clear.
The Executive branch apsolutly can file charges against a member of Congress for such actions as we have discussed (it has been done in the past).
The Congressman would then have the right to state that they are immune from prosecution by virtue of Article I Section 6 (or many other such allowances).
It would then be up to the Judicial branch to rule on the validity of the immunity. They could allow the trial or dismiss it depending on the facts of the case. (Although I could not find an instance where the immunity was not upheld.)
It is the beauty of the checks and balance system; no one branch of the government is immune from actions of the others.
As I have pointed out many times, any nation can, at any time, withdraw from a treaty they are a part of.
If any nation decided they wanted shorter limits they simply have to change any applicable national laws, then withdraw from the treaty. A nation could also just ignore the treaty as well. (Very few countries place treaty agreements higher than national laws like the US does. In most nations when a treaty is signed, it has no force of law until the member nation creates a set of national laws covering the agreement.)
If the information was classified, it is a felony under US Federal law to disclose that information to a non-privileged person. That would be why you do not see any Congressman from disclosing stuff for political profit.
In this case, I doubt that the text of the treaty is under any such classification in the US. In addition several rulings have made it clear that no enforceable law can be kept secrete. A treaty may or may not qualify under those grounds though. Again this would only apply to the United States.
For a fun example of such an event watch, Point of Order, the documentary on the Senate-Army McCarthy hearings. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_Order_%28film%29) Or just look into McCarthy's investigations.
I agree with most of what you said. The only exception is the "it would not be a major cost". Even if you only NEED to print 10 pages per month for every person, at a University with 10,000 students and faculty, that adds up to 1.2 million pages per year. If you can reduce a per page cost by 10% that is a significant cost savings.
My guess is that the change in email font is only part of a large change across many fronts in order to reduce costs. (A similar change of the default font used in Word and other word processors would have a even greater impact I would assume.)
There will always be times you will need to print an email.
A recent example came up at work recently. We had a design meeting between many people/departments at my work. I had pertinent notes in an email that needed to be at the meeting. The option was to setup a A/V system to display the email then forward copies to everyone, or I could print ten copies and hand them out.
The second option took me less than 10 seconds (including waiting for them to print and walking over to pick them up). During the meeting many of the emails became impromptu notebooks and are now covered with all kinds of additions or alterations to the design. (which was more useful to me to have the notes ON the design instead of on a blank piece of paper.)
On top of being less work, many employees have eye issues and may find it easier to read the paper document in front of them than what is a projected screen (our office manger is an example). Lastly there are many locations that you simply can't setup electronic displays (at a restaurant during a lunch time meeting for example).
See the subject line. =P
Some items of note.
Lieberman is an independent not a Democrat. He left the Democratic party after the 2004 elections.
Most people in the Executive branch are career employees. They don't suddenly switch when a new President gets elected. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the Federal Government has a yearly turnover rate of about 7.1%. Meaning that of the approximate 2,000,000 current Federal employees, about 1.86 million served during the previous administration. Other studies show that the majority of turnover is to lower positions and due to being promoted to higher positions.
In short, most of the people rejecting those FIOS petitions now, are the same people who were rejecting FIOS petitions four years ago. Many of those same people were probably hired during the Clinton administration for that matter, perhaps even during the Bush (Sr.) administration or even before that.
Also in an irony of ironies, your post got modded interesting instead of troll.
As I have pointed out before, logical constructs ARE math. Boolean algebra in most cases. The following bit of code is a prefect example of code that is both code and a mathematical equation:
IF (bob == true) Then
doSomeThing()
Else
doOtherThing()
End If
As a result, if you can't handle mathematical/logical constructs, you are pretty much worthless as a programmer. The opposite is also true, if you CAN handle logical constructs you ARE good at math. (You just don't know it. =P)
Given that all logical equations are also mathematical equations I would say very clearly, if you can't do math you can't write software. Also, just because your calculus skills are not up to snuff does not mean your Boolean algebra skills are not top notch.
He could be lining up a series of responses!
Except that your statement is still not true. Any nation can sign the document and then DO NOTHING. This happens all the time. The signatory still needs to CHOOSE to act upon the treaty, something they could do even if there were no treaty.
Your argument is that a government can do something bad but only if they sign a treaty. The truth of the situation is that, at any point a government can do something bad.
In this case there is nothing stopping any nation from just enacting all the provisions of ACTA into that nations law without ever signing ACTA. In the U.S.'s case that would require a Constitutional Amendment or two, however that is entirely possible.
In short, a treaty is just meaningless paper unless the country decides on its own to act in that manor. It never gives up its sovereignty. It makes a sovereign choice to act in a certain way. At any point it can choose to stop acting in that way. In addition at any point a nation can repudiate a treaty. Again, sovereignty is in no way threatened by a treaty EVER.
Nice summary, but you left out the part after the treaty is signed where a government rams new legislation down the throats of its citizens on the grounds that the previously signed treaty (under secrecy, with little democratic input) obligates the government to pass the Draconian legislation as proposed. Failure to do so will emasculate the country's standing in future treaty negotiations (we won't be regarded as good on our word), so be good little citizens and get out of the way.
My post was to contradict the OP's false statement of:
Understand that a treaty supersedes a nation's sovereignty ...
This statement is simply not true.
My point was that a treaty has no force of law. It does not force anyone to do anything. The action of agreeing to a treaty is entirely divorced from the action of enforcing a treaty. Whats more, any action a government could take in the name of a treaty, they could also take WITHOUT the treaty.
As for ACTA it self, I think any negotiations by the US Government that are held from the US Citizen are by definition immoral. What is in the treaty is irrelevant, the fact that the terms were not made public so that each and every American Citizen could weigh in and debate them, preempts any other issue.
Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.
When national security laws are used to cover-up the immoral actions of high-level personnel, Wikileaks *IS* above the law.
I would argue that within the terms you have listed they are not "above the law" but ARE acting within the law. Whats more, they are in those cases, acting in a way specifically protected and sanctioned by that same law.
And remember if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide.
The Supreme Court of the United States would disagree with you (The assumption is that you are being serious). See Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 59 (1949), ULLMANN V. UNITED STATES, 350 U. S. 422 (1956) and Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001) just to list a few. There is the issue of confessing to something that you did not do. According to the Innocence Project, about 25% of cases exonerated do to new DNA evidence are of this type:
http://innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php
I would point out the very basic discussion as to why, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Don't miss part two which covers the rebuttal by Officer Bruch. He basically agrees and adds additional reasons why.
Understand that a treaty supersedes a nation's sovereignty - in effect, you've signed away the right to abjudicate disagreements according to your own law. Those "rights" holders are attempting to dictate to Moscow, Washington, London, and Beijing, just how "intellectual property" will be handled in the future.
A treaty does NOT supersede a nations sovereignty. A treaty is an agreement between one or more countries (there have been single nation treaties signed) where all parties agree to do something. There is not force behind that agreement, each country has to decide that they want to follow the agreement and then do so.
There is no force behind the treaty other than the other nations would be upset. Japan ignored several treaties (and then broke them) prior to WWII. The United States ignored many, many treaties dealing with Indian nations. Both Britain and France have a long list of treaties that were ignored.
The most famous treaty not worth its own paper, would be that acknowledging Belgium's neutrality, signed by Germany (Treaty of London 1839).
If you are a US citizen there is a concern that a signed treaty is a way to side step Constitutional protections. Under the Constitution a treaty has more weight under law than one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights for example. This is of course subject to interpretation by the SCOTUS.
However even in this situation you would still have to have agents of the Government choosing to act on those treaty items. There would be no force of law requiring them to do so. If the President issued an executive order to not-enforce that provision of the treaty there would be little to no consequence (barring political backlash).
In addition, at any time, a nation can withdraw from a treaty. It is sort of like standing up and saying, "hey fellas, I don't care anymore."
I would suggest at least reading the Wikipedia page on treaties for a better understanding of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty
The US Government requires the use of seat belts and airbags. Those are both patented devices. (US Patent #312,085 and US Patent #7,401,807. There are actually several dozen other related patents but these are good examples.)
The FDA requires that certain medical devices be used for certain procedures such as open heart surgery, organ transplants. Almost all medical devices are patented. Also note that most drugs are also patented formulas.
The EPA requires that all manufactures dealing with toxic chemicals uses containment equipment and monitoring devices. Almost all such equipment is patented.
The FAA requires that all plains of a certain size be fitted with all kinds of detection and monitoring devices. Almost all such devices are patented.
Your belief that the government would not require the use of a patented device that is essential to the safe operation of another device is false. Patently false.
Just to be clear, I could spend the next week just LISTING the patented devices that are required to be used by the US government.
Again, this is a liability case. The rules for liability are VERY clear. Patents are irrelevant in this case, nothing more than FUD.
=P
I have no opinion as to who is right in this case. I just wanted to say that the ARTICLE sucked and was VERY biased.
I would agree to mdwh2's (535323) post that most of the other examples appeared to be pointless bits of text as well.
I agree, looking at both sides of the conversation would make it more clear. It still could go either way with this particular bit of text.
I know that one of the links in the article I linked to, did have some of the full text including both sides of the email exchanges. I don't remember seeing the other side of this exchange though.
Please look into liability law. It is very clear.
From the article:
In addition, they claim manufacturers are negligent in failing to adopt a flesh-detecting technology like SawStop's, which has been on the market since 2004.
The issue in this case was whether or not the device lacked a safety mechanism that is considered essential to safely operating the device. Notice that the issue is NOT should they have used SaftyStop. It is, should we allow the sale of a device that lacks a flesh-detections mechanism (of which several are on the market).
A group of reasonable people then took time to analyzing facts, hearing testimony from all parties, looking at all evidence presented by both parties. They then deliberated until a consensus was formed among them. The then decided that the lack of a flesh detection system constituted negligence under liability law.
If you really think that after the long and contemplative process that brought us this verdict is wrong, why don't you spend the same amount of time and effort formulating your counter argument with facts and reasonable arguments.
If you did, you might just convince me (and others) that your right. Until then, I will put my money on the people who DID devote themselves to analyzing the facts and being impartial.
The company did use better safety standards: they retained the usefulness of the tool by not encumbering it with extra crap that only gets in the way...
Exactly, the part that would have gotten in the way of his hand before it was sawed off...
=P
We are NOT on the internet! We call this the INTER-WEB-TUBES your mom uses them to make toast. HMMPHM!
*huffs off indignantly*
Is that better. =P