Why not? Harsh punishments are driving illegals underground and stopping them from paying taxes, even though they still use services that don't require access control or are required to accept emergency users- police, fire, roads, hospitals.
Wouldn't it make more sense to say that illegal immigrants who have a job aren't illegal?
I must admit, I don't know what you mean. XP x64 was a dog, I know, although a lot of people quite liked it.
But for about a year and half I've been running Vista x64, and I have noticed absolutely no problems. Certainly, I have had no problems with hardware support (although a few of my x16 games won't work... shame, really), and in fact, many PC manufacturers are preinstalling x64 Vista on their PCs.
I've also been testing Windows 7 x64 RC lately, and I've had absolutely no problems with that, either, even on a variety of custom-built hardware.
She was probably repeating the well-settled doctrine at this point that there are no natural rights. There are no inalienable human rights, merely those derived from the law and the documentation surrounding it- an interpretation of law that has been settled for close to two hundred years.
I'm not joking in the slightest. On average, juries are composed of people of below-average intelligence with absolutely no legal experience or expertise whatsoever. Moreover, sociology studies have demonstrated that jury groups are very, very prone to overreaction simply due to the fact that they operate in groups and do not have to explain or justify their reasoning.
Basically, you'd rather be judged by twelve people who are almost certainly going to overreact and who are stupid and don't know anything about the topic on which they are deciding than a single person who's spent their entire life to date doing exactly what they're doing now and who is constantly scrutinized by their peers and superiors, not to mention has specific training.
Would you like surgical decisions to be made by a committee of laypeople? No? Then why would you entrust your freedom to one?
We don't need juries. Juries are a blight on the criminal justice system and the source of far more injustice than any justice they might incidentally have meted out. There is a very good reason that judges try to keep juries at arms length.
And yet, great swaths of Christianity rely on Leviticus 18:22. Huge swaths of Christianity. They obviously do not think that the Old Testament was deprecated.
There can be no doubt of the moral judgment made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.
Show me, again, where exactly the Old Testament is deprecated?
I see. Therefore, no Christian denomination relies upon Leviticus 18:22 to condemn homosexuality?
It is indeed part of the Old Testament. But to say that Christianity has denied the Old Testament is fallacious and deliberately disingenuous. Christianity relies on the Old Testament rules all the time for moral advice. I would be perfectly happy to see the Old Testament purged from Christianity but it's just not happening.
The problem is you have provided no reasonable doubt to suggest someone else did it. Your argument, without any supporting evidence, that 'someone else did it', is not sufficient.
No, the keyword is "prove" in "prove beyond a reasonable doubt". This means you need to prove something happened, not just show that it's the most likely situation. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not the defendant, to prove that something happened. Being in your house when a crime was committed does not prove that you committed that crime.
I have to disagree. The prosecutor has provided proof that you were there. It may not be iron-clad proof, but it's still proof. If you were in your house when the crime was committed, you can't prove anyone else was there, and the crime was committed from your house, what reasonable doubt exists that you did not commit the crime? The fact that a theoretical person could have done it? That's not reasonable. There is no evidence to support that doubt.
If my wife and I are the only ones home and she gets murdered, there needs to be more evidence than "you were the only one there, so you must have done it" to prove that I was the one who murdered her. Again, why should that argument work when it comes to acts on computers?
If your wife and you are the only ones home and she gets murdered with nobody else around, chances are you're going to get convicted. If you can provide no proof that you were elsewhere or that someone else was there, and they can prove that she was murdered (both postulates are assumed in your statement, and are true in the original case as well), then there exists no reasonable doubt that somebody else could have committed the crime.
The keyword in 'reasonable doubt' is not 'doubt', it's 'reasonable'. Saying that it is theoretically possible that somebody else committed the crime does not, itself, create reasonable doubt.
It's theoretically possible that aliens or the NSA did it and framed you, but that's not sufficient for reasonable doubt. If you want to make that doubt reasonable, you need to show why the possibility is stronger than theoretical.
Mathematics is entirely arbitrary because it a) cannot be proven to be true, and b) is a set of rules that is, to a great extent, divorced from the actual reality that it seeks to examine.
a) should be tautologically obvious, of course. b) is easy to explain when you look at, for example, calculus. The process of differentiation is impossible to conduct logically because it relies on a logically incoherent statement: a derivative is the slope of the line at any instantaneous point. Given that a slope is change between two points, this is obviously rubbish; you cannot have the slope of a single point, as there is no change.
How about Albert Einstein's quote that "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."?
Well, for example, I could point you at the Canadian banking system as a contrast to the American banking system. This article talks about it a bit.
By forcing banks to maintain significant capitol reserves on hand, the chances of them collapsing and then requiring point intervention by the government is significantly lessened, and ultimately I think it's a much less significant intervention in the management of their affairs.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think being forced to obey a valid court order to hand over information is an erosion of civil liberties.
Robert Peel would disagree:
Why not? Harsh punishments are driving illegals underground and stopping them from paying taxes, even though they still use services that don't require access control or are required to accept emergency users- police, fire, roads, hospitals.
Wouldn't it make more sense to say that illegal immigrants who have a job aren't illegal?
Ironically, your argument seems to have its own solution. Why not tax immigrants?
Generally if you fail to appear without a good reason you can be found in default and lose automatically.
Which is a bad thing if you, you know, don't actually want to lose.
Consider: it's a store with gigantic screens and a huge number of Xboxen....
I must admit, I don't know what you mean. XP x64 was a dog, I know, although a lot of people quite liked it.
But for about a year and half I've been running Vista x64, and I have noticed absolutely no problems. Certainly, I have had no problems with hardware support (although a few of my x16 games won't work... shame, really), and in fact, many PC manufacturers are preinstalling x64 Vista on their PCs.
I've also been testing Windows 7 x64 RC lately, and I've had absolutely no problems with that, either, even on a variety of custom-built hardware.
It doesn't matter what you think of my interpretation, what matters is whether it is the correct one- and it happens to be.
A shame really. People keep dragging it out again and again, and it keeps getting knocked down again and again, but it's a lot of effort.
She was probably repeating the well-settled doctrine at this point that there are no natural rights. There are no inalienable human rights, merely those derived from the law and the documentation surrounding it- an interpretation of law that has been settled for close to two hundred years.
I'm not joking in the slightest. On average, juries are composed of people of below-average intelligence with absolutely no legal experience or expertise whatsoever. Moreover, sociology studies have demonstrated that jury groups are very, very prone to overreaction simply due to the fact that they operate in groups and do not have to explain or justify their reasoning.
Basically, you'd rather be judged by twelve people who are almost certainly going to overreact and who are stupid and don't know anything about the topic on which they are deciding than a single person who's spent their entire life to date doing exactly what they're doing now and who is constantly scrutinized by their peers and superiors, not to mention has specific training.
Would you like surgical decisions to be made by a committee of laypeople? No? Then why would you entrust your freedom to one?
We don't need juries. Juries are a blight on the criminal justice system and the source of far more injustice than any justice they might incidentally have meted out. There is a very good reason that judges try to keep juries at arms length.
Under most circumstances, you can appeal a contempt order.
If a judge ordered you to provide something obviously ridiculous, your contempt conviction would be overturned by an appeal court.
In which case, whether or not you have handguns is irrelevant, isn't it?
I'm pretty sure the political consequences of doing so would enormously outweigh the consequences of not killing McVeigh.
And yet, great swaths of Christianity rely on Leviticus 18:22. Huge swaths of Christianity. They obviously do not think that the Old Testament was deprecated.
In fact, the Vatican itself makes reference to it!
The man who is now pope, in that letter, writes:
Show me, again, where exactly the Old Testament is deprecated?
I see. Therefore, no Christian denomination relies upon Leviticus 18:22 to condemn homosexuality?
It is indeed part of the Old Testament. But to say that Christianity has denied the Old Testament is fallacious and deliberately disingenuous. Christianity relies on the Old Testament rules all the time for moral advice. I would be perfectly happy to see the Old Testament purged from Christianity but it's just not happening.
What do you mean, 'does nothing of the sort'? How about the dozens of rules on the people you have to kill?
I sincerely doubt it. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the US government would provide the guarantee if the alternative is letting McVeigh go.
The problem is you have provided no reasonable doubt to suggest someone else did it. Your argument, without any supporting evidence, that 'someone else did it', is not sufficient.
There is no reasonable doubt.
I have to disagree. The prosecutor has provided proof that you were there. It may not be iron-clad proof, but it's still proof. If you were in your house when the crime was committed, you can't prove anyone else was there, and the crime was committed from your house, what reasonable doubt exists that you did not commit the crime? The fact that a theoretical person could have done it? That's not reasonable. There is no evidence to support that doubt.
If your wife and you are the only ones home and she gets murdered with nobody else around, chances are you're going to get convicted. If you can provide no proof that you were elsewhere or that someone else was there, and they can prove that she was murdered (both postulates are assumed in your statement, and are true in the original case as well), then there exists no reasonable doubt that somebody else could have committed the crime.
The keyword in 'reasonable doubt' is not 'doubt', it's 'reasonable'. Saying that it is theoretically possible that somebody else committed the crime does not, itself, create reasonable doubt.
It's theoretically possible that aliens or the NSA did it and framed you, but that's not sufficient for reasonable doubt. If you want to make that doubt reasonable, you need to show why the possibility is stronger than theoretical.
Mathematics is entirely arbitrary because it a) cannot be proven to be true, and b) is a set of rules that is, to a great extent, divorced from the actual reality that it seeks to examine.
a) should be tautologically obvious, of course.
b) is easy to explain when you look at, for example, calculus. The process of differentiation is impossible to conduct logically because it relies on a logically incoherent statement: a derivative is the slope of the line at any instantaneous point. Given that a slope is change between two points, this is obviously rubbish; you cannot have the slope of a single point, as there is no change.
Um, what part of it do you find is inadequate?
How about Albert Einstein's quote that "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."?
Well, for example, I could point you at the Canadian banking system as a contrast to the American banking system. This article talks about it a bit.
By forcing banks to maintain significant capitol reserves on hand, the chances of them collapsing and then requiring point intervention by the government is significantly lessened, and ultimately I think it's a much less significant intervention in the management of their affairs.