idk. Are you human? If so, then you should know... that's the way we die. If you can't handle it and can detach yourself from any that might care about you, then there would be no reason. However, if you are truly human, and not mentally ill, and not a coward, then in fear and trembling you will walk every last painful humiliating step until the final end. And then you will know why you experienced others suffering, and why you sufferred yourself, in a way no one could explain. Life is pain. Death is nothing. Which is more noble to endure?
remove religion and there's zero issue with people killing themselves
Bzzzt. Wrong. Suicide is terrible for society. Also, it has a detrimental effect on the economy (the dead don't tend to spend much). And have you heard of Darwin? It's really no good for evolution. Unless in protest, suicide is the single most selfish act a person can commit.
yeah, if he had realized that control was an illusion, if he had decided instead that it was not up to him to decide when it would end, just as it was not his decision to begin, to face debilitation and pain... he would have undone all he had done and we'd see him as a coward.
btw you are an idiot.
suicide is for cowards (unless in protest). there is no honor in ending your life. Either you have the fortitude to see it through to the very end, or you don't. He didn't. Suicide doesn't diminish what he did while alive, however, it does not make him brave.
I studied Turing from 2 different perspectives, philosophy & mathematics (inclusive: computer science), and also studied history of science, and I had never heard of Turing's persecution. I like to think of myself as not racist... hell, most people do... and I've always liked Brits, don't know why. But no more. Fuck those assholes. Fuck them for putting up with such a shitty big brother government. They better not come around here no more, I won't serve their kind. "Great" Britain, you are dead to me .
A prosecutor's immunity from prosecution has a purpose. Their immunity is so a prosecutor can afford to be just. It's a shame that prosecutors don't see it this way, and lack of acknowledgement of this purpose leads to the common, nay, ubiquitous practice for prosecution to charge a suspect with w, x, y, & z crimes, when the only crime committed was x. The more charges against a suspect, the more guilty they look. It's a cheat. Prosecutors, esp. elected ones, don't give a damn about justice. They care about winning, even if justice is perverted in order to secure the win.
Teacher obviously made up that story entirely. That brownie had the potency of 3 entire books of LSD... and gave it (a value of $300 to $1000+) away because of a fear it would be discovered? Bullshit. No one, not even an LSD-crazed hippie would make such a thing.
Interestingly, though there are no documented cases of it actually occurring, LSD can kill... the same way water can kill. You can drown in it.
This is rather absurd, isn't it? The world economy is in the shitter, the US debt out of control, violent crime rises as does unemployment... yet these moronic, relentless conservatives in the Justice Dept. somehow believe they deserve a pat on the back for spending ?millions battling Canada for extradition of a single man that sold... seed. And our taxes will be paying to board him for a few years.
I'd like to ask these idiots: "in what way has the pursuit of prosecution of Marc Emory NOT hurt America?"
What possible reason would there be for anybody to pay more to an American worker than to a Chinese or Indian worker?
Well, that's a tough one. But let me give it a go...
Perhaps it could be a similar to the reason some will pay more for the same meat products just because the livestock was raised humanely. If we accept that American workers are far less likely to be taken advantage of by their employer, then one reason would be conscience, i.e. "motivation deriving logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions." Happy and unexploited workers don't come cheap.
Another possible reason is love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it, aka patriotism.
That's only two, but I'd guess there are still dozens, if not many many more, possible reasons. Even having a gun to your head is a possible reason. Lot's of reasons are possible.
There are cheaper ways to risk your life for a thrill. Space, everyone seems to forget, is the most dangerous (and expensive) place a human can be. Tourism revenue just doesn't cut it for a reason to do this.
I love these cars... I do... but they make no financial sense.
$109,000???
for $9000 you can get a very very nice gas guzzler that's maybe a year or so old (sticker $18K).
for $100,000 you can get 20,000 gallons of gas at $5/gallon, giving you
200,000 miles at 10MPG
domestic gas guzzlers are cheap to repair, can be maintained anywhere in the US.
Even if I had a billion dollars, I'd rather give a million to a random poor person than spend $109,000 on my insecure ego, and delude myself into thinking I was helping the environment.
You need a logic course.
I might be pedant, but you're not at all accurate.
You must join the bar to practice law. If you don't have a degree, you may not join the bar.
I have givin links proving otherwise. Unless you add to that statement "in such and such jurisdiction, where it is required," your statement is false. Its not 43/50th correct, that has little meaning. Its either T or F.
That's the distinction I'm making, and my wording was necessary for that distinction.
Your wording is muddled, and as I pointed out twice, contains a double negative.
So yes, you can't join the bar if you aren't already in the bar (and have no law degree).
Again, your statement is FALSE. It is false everywhere. btw, what you mean to say is: IF [(you aren't already in the bar)AND(have a law degree)] THEN you can't join the bar
and this is false, too (see the link above).
I can't practice law in Alaska without a law degree. It's illegal. I must join the bar, and I am inelligible to do so without a law degree, so I am barred from practicing law. And thus, your statement is incorrect.
Even if you are in Alaska, the statement one does not need a law degree to practice law is a true statement. Even if you are in Alaska, you may still practice law without a degree in California, Maine, New York, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming and Washington.
I'll highlight this again because it's painfully evident: You need to take a course in logic.
A book? Who said anything about a book? Its being released in book form. If it were to be released as a book, surely the headline would read: XKCD Author Publishing Book.
Person who 1) has no law degree, and 2) is not already a memeber of the bar may neither join the bar nor practice law. I don't see where the confusion is
its in 2. : "Person who... is not already a member of the bar may [not] join the bar"
or, from the original:
"I know of no area where someone... who is not a member of the bar can... join the bar"
No, you said, "one does not need a law degree to practice law" and that is incorrect for 43 of the 50 states
You need a logic course. Even if there were only a single courthouse in all the universe where a lawyer may practice law without a degree, the statement "You do not need a law degree to practice law" would still be true... everywhere in the universe. Just because the statement is true everywhere doesn't mean that you can practice law (sans degree) everywhere.
So, to rehash, even in all 50 states this is a true statement: "one does not need a law degree to practice law."
now, if the statement was "one does not need a law degree to practice law in a state where the bar association requires a law degree to sit for the bar exam," that would be fallacious.
I know of no area where someone without a law degree who is not a member of the bar can practice law or join the bar
Did you read that before you submitted it? You have to be a member of the bar BEFORE you're a member of the bar?
What I said was all that was necessary to practice law was to be a member of the (state or federal) bar association. And this is true. Most bar associations require a law degree to sit for the bar exam. But several don't. If you meet their requirements (which do not necessarily require having a J.D.) and can sit for and pass the exam... you can become a member and then can legally practice law (without the J.D.) in these jurisdictions.
And you should really check out California, Maine, New York, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming and Washington, if you, indeed, have never heard of these places.
And you bring up, first I've seen in the comments here, that there are alternatives (besides LaTeX).
I'd like to point out that if you're having something professionally printed, you are wasting time trying to format and typeset a document in Word for typesetting accuracy. Save the print operator a step and send plain text, because that's what a competant operator would convert to when coming upon a word doc. Send out text, and reformat and typeset in a PRO typesetting app like Adobe InDesign or QuarkXPress. Word seems to randomly reflow content... no way to control how it looks on different machines.
And could someone plz tell job recruters that.doc is NOT a standard format available to everyone everywhere. pdf is what they should be asking for... but apparently Word doesn't manipulate them, even for just viewing, very well. And they just aren't saavy enough to know their browser can open it just fine. Nor are they aware of this new and difficult to master Adobe Reader... nor are they willing to purchase such an app.
I find it hard to believe that most record labels are RIAA members. Considering that every major city has at least a few unheard of indy labels, I'd guess there are far more labels unaffiliated with the RIAA. A national release isn't necessary to be considered a record label (which is really just a special marketing firm).
Two 'major' (i.e. important) indy labels unaffiliated with the RIAA that come to mind are Grand Royal and Merge Records. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe that Sub Pop Records is still not an RIAA member (though one of its owners, Warner Bros., holding a 49% stake, is).
I wasn't commenting on NYCL's credentials, merrly pointing out that one does not need a law degree to practice law. The U.S. set the international standard for the J.D. curriculum, and it is a professional degree, not an academic one, yet most everyone who meets a J.D. looks up at those framed degrees as though the holder were a wise and learned scholar. Yet a law student, more, even a law graduate, is no academic scholar, nor even, and this is critical, a lawyer. A lawyer is one who practices law as a member of the legal profession's guild or union... or association they call the Bar. Once you are a member, afa practicing law is concerned, it doesn't matter how you got there.
You kinda need some word a bit more intense than "tragedy" here, don't you?
"Tragic" is one of those words, like "special," that has lost nearly all its original meaning due to misuse of the word (I blame fucking journalists) and general acceptance of the misuse. A "tragedy" used to only be a theatrical piece in which the main character brings ruin upon his/herself, usually ironically (i.e. dramatic irony) and/or through some character flaw. So... to some sensational journalist Jane Doe didn't merely bring calamity and death upon herself by driving into that telephone pole, she tragically ended her life in a pile of twisted metal and splinters, even if she was or was not, indeed, the very one that planted that telephone pole in her own path, tragically, only weeks before.
AT&T has no favorites plan. It's free cell to cell between 2 at&t subscribers, that's about it.
Even if at&t did have a favorites plan, GV calls back from a local voip switch, spoofing their callerID as a number of your choosing. If spoofing a callerID fools at&t, then they have deeper issues (spoofing callerID leads to massive revenue loss).
Slashdot Mirror
What's unjustly selfish is thinking you have any right to dictate the permissible ways for a rational individual to die.
It is quite selfish of you to decide what I can think.
Sure. It hurts the economy the same way murder hurts the economy... as suicide, after all, is merely a specialized subset of murder.
How many people have you watched wither and die?
A few. They were helpless. Just like when they first arrived. There's a certain undeniable symmetry to it.
I refuse to accept your opinion on this matter, sorry.
Save your insincere apologies for your children.
but it's _not_ natural.
You are correct, not natural. But it _is_ civilized. Funny how civilization is so underated here on /. idk why, but it always seems to get a bad rap.
Why the fuck should I hang around as a vegetable?
idk. Are you human? If so, then you should know... that's the way we die. If you can't handle it and can detach yourself from any that might care about you, then there would be no reason. However, if you are truly human, and not mentally ill, and not a coward, then in fear and trembling you will walk every last painful humiliating step until the final end. And then you will know why you experienced others suffering, and why you sufferred yourself, in a way no one could explain. Life is pain. Death is nothing. Which is more noble to endure?
remove religion and there's zero issue with people killing themselves
Bzzzt. Wrong. Suicide is terrible for society. Also, it has a detrimental effect on the economy (the dead don't tend to spend much). And have you heard of Darwin? It's really no good for evolution. Unless in protest, suicide is the single most selfish act a person can commit.
yeah, if he had realized that control was an illusion, if he had decided instead that it was not up to him to decide when it would end, just as it was not his decision to begin, to face debilitation and pain... he would have undone all he had done and we'd see him as a coward.
btw you are an idiot. suicide is for cowards (unless in protest). there is no honor in ending your life. Either you have the fortitude to see it through to the very end, or you don't. He didn't. Suicide doesn't diminish what he did while alive, however, it does not make him brave.
I studied Turing from 2 different perspectives, philosophy & mathematics (inclusive: computer science), and also studied history of science, and I had never heard of Turing's persecution. I like to think of myself as not racist... hell, most people do... and I've always liked Brits, don't know why. But no more. Fuck those assholes. Fuck them for putting up with such a shitty big brother government. They better not come around here no more, I won't serve their kind. "Great" Britain, you are dead to me .
That's just so WRONG.
Agreed. Headline should read:
Robotics Engineers' Girlfriends at End, Starting to Cry
remind me to fire the copy editor -Ed.
A prosecutor's immunity from prosecution has a purpose. Their immunity is so a prosecutor can afford to be just. It's a shame that prosecutors don't see it this way, and lack of acknowledgement of this purpose leads to the common, nay, ubiquitous practice for prosecution to charge a suspect with w, x, y, & z crimes, when the only crime committed was x. The more charges against a suspect, the more guilty they look. It's a cheat. Prosecutors, esp. elected ones, don't give a damn about justice. They care about winning, even if justice is perverted in order to secure the win.
Teacher obviously made up that story entirely. That brownie had the potency of 3 entire books of LSD... and gave it (a value of $300 to $1000+) away because of a fear it would be discovered? Bullshit. No one, not even an LSD-crazed hippie would make such a thing.
Interestingly, though there are no documented cases of it actually occurring, LSD can kill... the same way water can kill. You can drown in it.
At this point and time Marc is going to jail.
This is rather absurd, isn't it? The world economy is in the shitter, the US debt out of control, violent crime rises as does unemployment... yet these moronic, relentless conservatives in the Justice Dept. somehow believe they deserve a pat on the back for spending ?millions battling Canada for extradition of a single man that sold... seed. And our taxes will be paying to board him for a few years.
I'd like to ask these idiots: "in what way has the pursuit of prosecution of Marc Emory NOT hurt America?"
What possible reason would there be for anybody to pay more to an American worker than to a Chinese or Indian worker?
Well, that's a tough one. But let me give it a go...
Perhaps it could be a similar to the reason some will pay more for the same meat products just because the livestock was raised humanely. If we accept that American workers are far less likely to be taken advantage of by their employer, then one reason would be conscience, i.e. "motivation deriving logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions." Happy and unexploited workers don't come cheap.
Another possible reason is love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it, aka patriotism.
That's only two, but I'd guess there are still dozens, if not many many more, possible reasons. Even having a gun to your head is a possible reason. Lot's of reasons are possible.
There are cheaper ways to risk your life for a thrill. Space, everyone seems to forget, is the most dangerous (and expensive) place a human can be. Tourism revenue just doesn't cut it for a reason to do this.
I love these cars... I do... but they make no financial sense.
$109,000???
for $9000 you can get a very very nice gas guzzler that's maybe a year or so old (sticker $18K).
for $100,000 you can get 20,000 gallons of gas at $5/gallon, giving you
200,000 miles at 10MPG
domestic gas guzzlers are cheap to repair, can be maintained anywhere in the US.
Even if I had a billion dollars, I'd rather give a million to a random poor person than spend $109,000 on my insecure ego, and delude myself into thinking I was helping the environment.
I might be pedant, but you're not at all accurate.
You must join the bar to practice law. If you don't have a degree, you may not join the bar.
I have givin links proving otherwise. Unless you add to that statement "in such and such jurisdiction, where it is required," your statement is false. Its not 43/50th correct, that has little meaning. Its either T or F.
That's the distinction I'm making, and my wording was necessary for that distinction.
Your wording is muddled, and as I pointed out twice, contains a double negative.
So yes, you can't join the bar if you aren't already in the bar (and have no law degree).
Again, your statement is FALSE. It is false everywhere. btw, what you mean to say is:
IF
[ (you aren't already in the bar) AND (have a law degree) ]
THEN
you can't join the bar
and this is false, too (see the link above).
I can't practice law in Alaska without a law degree. It's illegal. I must join the bar, and I am inelligible to do so without a law degree, so I am barred from practicing law. And thus, your statement is incorrect.
Even if you are in Alaska, the statement one does not need a law degree to practice law is a true statement. Even if you are in Alaska, you may still practice law without a degree in California, Maine, New York, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming and Washington.
I'll highlight this again because it's painfully evident:
You need to take a course in logic.
How does XKCD work as a book?
A book? Who said anything about a book? Its being released in book form. If it were to be released as a book, surely the headline would read:
XKCD Author Publishing Book.
Person who 1) has no law degree, and 2) is not already a memeber of the bar may neither join the bar nor practice law. I don't see where the confusion is
its in 2. : ... is not already a member of the bar may [not] join the bar"
... who is not a member of the bar can ... join the bar"
"Person who
or, from the original:
"I know of no area where someone
No, you said, "one does not need a law degree to practice law" and that is incorrect for 43 of the 50 states
You need a logic course. Even if there were only a single courthouse in all the universe where a lawyer may practice law without a degree, the statement "You do not need a law degree to practice law" would still be true... everywhere in the universe. Just because the statement is true everywhere doesn't mean that you can practice law (sans degree) everywhere.
So, to rehash, even in all 50 states this is a true statement: "one does not need a law degree to practice law."
now, if the statement was "one does not need a law degree to practice law in a state where the bar association requires a law degree to sit for the bar exam," that would be fallacious.
That is incorrect. Every bar association I know of r... And every state I know of
Actually, it is correct.
I know of no area where someone without a law degree who is not a member of the bar can practice law or join the bar
Did you read that before you submitted it? You have to be a member of the bar BEFORE you're a member of the bar?
What I said was all that was necessary to practice law was to be a member of the (state or federal) bar association. And this is true. Most bar associations require a law degree to sit for the bar exam. But several don't. If you meet their requirements (which do not necessarily require having a J.D.) and can sit for and pass the exam... you can become a member and then can legally practice law (without the J.D.) in these jurisdictions.
And you should really check out California, Maine, New York, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming and Washington, if you, indeed, have never heard of these places.
nice trip, enjoyed that, thx.
.doc is NOT a standard format available to everyone everywhere. pdf is what they should be asking for... but apparently Word doesn't manipulate them, even for just viewing, very well. And they just aren't saavy enough to know their browser can open it just fine. Nor are they aware of this new and difficult to master Adobe Reader... nor are they willing to purchase such an app.
And you bring up, first I've seen in the comments here, that there are alternatives (besides LaTeX).
I'd like to point out that if you're having something professionally printed, you are wasting time trying to format and typeset a document in Word for typesetting accuracy. Save the print operator a step and send plain text, because that's what a competant operator would convert to when coming upon a word doc. Send out text, and reformat and typeset in a PRO typesetting app like Adobe InDesign or QuarkXPress. Word seems to randomly reflow content... no way to control how it looks on different machines.
And could someone plz tell job recruters that
Some labels are not RIAA, but most are.
I find it hard to believe that most record labels are RIAA members. Considering that every major city has at least a few unheard of indy labels, I'd guess there are far more labels unaffiliated with the RIAA. A national release isn't necessary to be considered a record label (which is really just a special marketing firm).
Two 'major' (i.e. important) indy labels unaffiliated with the RIAA that come to mind are Grand Royal and Merge Records. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe that Sub Pop Records is still not an RIAA member (though one of its owners, Warner Bros., holding a 49% stake, is).
I wasn't commenting on NYCL's credentials, merrly pointing out that one does not need a law degree to practice law. The U.S. set the international standard for the J.D. curriculum, and it is a professional degree, not an academic one, yet most everyone who meets a J.D. looks up at those framed degrees as though the holder were a wise and learned scholar. Yet a law student, more, even a law graduate, is no academic scholar, nor even, and this is critical, a lawyer. A lawyer is one who practices law as a member of the legal profession's guild or union... or association they call the Bar. Once you are a member, afa practicing law is concerned, it doesn't matter how you got there.
Law school?
We don't need no stinking law school!
You kinda need some word a bit more intense than "tragedy" here, don't you?
"Tragic" is one of those words, like "special," that has lost nearly all its original meaning due to misuse of the word (I blame fucking journalists) and general acceptance of the misuse. A "tragedy" used to only be a theatrical piece in which the main character brings ruin upon his/herself, usually ironically (i.e. dramatic irony) and/or through some character flaw. So... to some sensational journalist Jane Doe didn't merely bring calamity and death upon herself by driving into that telephone pole, she tragically ended her life in a pile of twisted metal and splinters, even if she was or was not, indeed, the very one that planted that telephone pole in her own path, tragically, only weeks before.
AT&T has no favorites plan. It's free cell to cell between 2 at&t subscribers, that's about it.
Even if at&t did have a favorites plan, GV calls back from a local voip switch, spoofing their callerID as a number of your choosing. If spoofing a callerID fools at&t, then they have deeper issues (spoofing callerID leads to massive revenue loss).