I could ask you to cease and desist breathing. Your refusing to comply does not automatically give me the right to stop you from breathing. The legality of UT's actions are independent of the cease and desist order (which has no force in law).
In this case, the court correctly found that UT's action was legal.
The CEO had nothing to do with the cause of the gas leak. The responsibility belonged to the engineers who under-engineered the system and to the operators who neglected basic safety procedures. The conviction of Warren Anderson was a feel-good political move to take the heat off the government which had allowed the plant to operate in the state it did.
Corporations are only considered individuals as far as civil law is concerned. Corporations cannot be held guilty of criminal offenses and that is a good thing.
Corporations allow their employees and shareholders to hide from civil responsibility over their actions. Any fines or lawsuit seeking money for damages caused by an employee or shareholders actions as an employee or shareholder of a corporation can only go after the corporations assets, not the assets of the employees or shareholders.
Criminal law is a whole other beast, however. When a corporations commits a criminal violation, you don't want the people who were responsible for that to be able to hide from criminal prosecution. Any employees or shareholders responsible for the criminal act can be prosecuted fully for their criminal liability. Putting the corporation "in jail" is not going to punish the people
On the other hand, compare Ewing, NE (where my wife is from) on MSN Virtual Earth v/s Google.
Try zooming in and out a little on both to see my point. Not only does searching for Ewing, NE on Google center it several miles SouthWest of where Ewing actually is, the satellite photos are virtually useless.
My biggest gripes with the MSN service are that it breaks my browsers back buttons and that the URL is not easy to type or remember.
It's clear that both have a ways to go before they will be where we want them to be but I'd give the edge to Google right now.
Well, to be fair, you would have to note that MSN put roadmaps right on top of the photos within days of Google launching this feature so it's extremely unlikely that they copied it (not enough time) and more likely that they were planning this all along and were just a little late to the party.
It's not Bush who's torturing and killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, it's Al Qaeda and the Baathists - the very people some on the left would like to see us turn the country over to. Unfortunately enough in the American public are gullible enough to accept it as being Bush's fault.
Virtual PC will run like a champ on the Intel machines since a lot of the work it does right now would become redundant. However, that will most likely require MS to release a new version of it. With the currently available versions, it will probably run dog slow since it would have to first emulate Intel on the PPC and then the OS emulates those PPC instructions on the Intel CPU.
Actually, I haven't made up my mind about abortion. On the one hand, I resent the idea of governments telling people what to do with their life without affecting the rights of others. On the other hand, there is a need to protect the life of those who can't protect their own. It all boils down to whether or not you consider an unborn fetus a "human life" and unfortunately I don't see any clear medical or philosophical argument establishing one way or the other.
I'm also a pragmatist. It's clear that a lot of people feel very strongly on the subject and that a majority of people support abortion rights. I'm all for a constitutional amendment enumerating it as an unalienable right if it gets us back to talking about the more important things.
Not Scalia's, Souter's. Scalia is one of the most "conservative" judges on the bench and he voted in dissent of the eminent domain abuse. Souter, one of the most "liberal" judges, voted for it. Scalia is the Democrats example of a terrible judge and Souter is their "ideal" judge.
Roe v Wade was made on a shaky foundation. It was a clearly bizarre interpretation of the constitution. Unfortunately the only way to preserve the right to abortions is to either amend the constitution or continue to keep the SCOTUS stacked with judges who support abortion rights and who are willing to disregard what the constitution says. Unfortunately, it is too hard to amend the constitution and even though a majority of the people support abortion rights, it is virtually impossible to get such an amendment through. This issue is important enough to enough people that we will continue to have people oppose constructionists and support activist judges for this reason alone.
Umm.. who do you think dissented on the marijuana case(besides O'Connor)? Rehnquist and Thomas - constructionists. It was the activists who supported expanding the federal governments powers to stop states from legalizing marijuana.
Who do you think dissented in the Kelo v/s New London property-grab case (besides O'Connor)? Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist - constructionists.
Both cases clearly supported the so-called right-wing agenda: big business and banning "immorality", yet these so-called conservative judges dissented in these cases. It's because they are constructionists, not conservatives.
The "checks and balances" are not about right wing v/s left wing. The "checks and balances" refer to the job of the SCOTUS to prevent the legislature from making laws that violate the constitution. Period. We shouldn't be having "rightist" or "leftist" judges at all. We should be having Constructionists - i.e. those who rule based on what the law is, not what they want the law to be.
Clarence Thomas is a constructionist, not a Conservative. His dissenting opinions in the marijuana and private-property-grab decisions are consistent with his positions.
We need more Constructionists on the bench. The opposite of constructionist judges is autocratic ones.
It's sad how much the lack of a constitutional amendment supporting abortion rights is going to harm this nation. I wish we could get such an amendment into the constitution in the next few years so people will have no reason to fear constructionists and we don't drift towards an autocratic SCOTUS.
How the heck is the parent Flamebait? The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret ambiguous law, not substitute it with the law they'd like to see. A state where judges are allowed to make up law is an autocracy, not a democracy. The task of making law should be left up to the legislature, not usurped by the judiciary.
That being said, Sandra was one of the few judges who dissented against the recent property-grab decision. My worry is that Bush will nominate someone who is right-wing rather than a Constructionist to replace her. Someone who makes laws from scratch to favor the right is just as bad as or worse than a judge who makes laws from scratch to favor the left.
No, being a swing voter has nothing to do with being Left or Right. 4 of of the justices on the SCOTUS currently are "constructionists", i.e. they believe that their job is to resolve ambiguities in the Constitution by figuring out what the people who wrote it most likely meant when they wrote it. 4 others believe that the Constitution is a "living document" and that their job is to resolve ambiguities by applying modern interpretations to the words in the document. Conservatives like the constructionists because their rulings tend to support their own agendas and likewise the liberals tend to like the "living document" wing because their rulings tend to conform to their agenda.
O'Connor is a "swing" voter because sometimes she reasons based upon a strict interpretation and at other times reasons based upon a more creative interpretation of the constitution. It has nothing to do with Centrism. The fact that constructionists are aligned with the right and the "living document" wing is aligned with the left is merely an accident of what the constitution actually is.
Because the current US tort system allows you to sue the person with the biggest pockets regardless of who holds the biggest responsibility for damages. Homeowner shoots burglar? Sue the gun company.
In a market where price is determined by supply, a charge on a manufacturer will simply be passed on as a cost to the consumer.
On the other hand, in a market where price is determined by demand, a charge at sale time will be passed on to the manufacturer in terms of lower sales/ a worse price.
There is no difference between making it a tax on the manufacturer v/s a tax on the consumer.
Bah. The braided stainless steel wire probably only ensures that connectivity exists. Put a jumper wire around where you plan to cut the wire, cut it and hand it to a buddy.
Microsoft's first priority should be to close the holes in its products that let viruses, spyware, spambots, mushrooms, toadstools, or whatever grow in their customers' computers.
Let me guess. You're one of those people who believe the FBI and CIA should stop doing everything they do because the #1 priority should be to catch Osama?
Software is a complex beast. They probably have as many people working on security as the codebase can handle. You can't expect to increase productivity simply by throwing more developers at a problem because pretty soon you'll get to a point where the devs are just stepping on each others toes instead of being productive.
Your car consumes less gas while coasting to a stop (in gear - as is the case if you have an automatic) than it does while it is idling. While coasting, the momentum of the car is driving the engine and maintaining the RPM needed to not stall, while idling consumes gas.
Slashdot Mirror
I could ask you to cease and desist breathing. Your refusing to comply does not automatically give me the right to stop you from breathing. The legality of UT's actions are independent of the cease and desist order (which has no force in law).
In this case, the court correctly found that UT's action was legal.
The CEO had nothing to do with the cause of the gas leak. The responsibility belonged to the engineers who under-engineered the system and to the operators who neglected basic safety procedures. The conviction of Warren Anderson was a feel-good political move to take the heat off the government which had allowed the plant to operate in the state it did.
Corporations are only considered individuals as far as civil law is concerned. Corporations cannot be held guilty of criminal offenses and that is a good thing.
Corporations allow their employees and shareholders to hide from civil responsibility over their actions. Any fines or lawsuit seeking money for damages caused by an employee or shareholders actions as an employee or shareholder of a corporation can only go after the corporations assets, not the assets of the employees or shareholders.
Criminal law is a whole other beast, however. When a corporations commits a criminal violation, you don't want the people who were responsible for that to be able to hide from criminal prosecution. Any employees or shareholders responsible for the criminal act can be prosecuted fully for their criminal liability. Putting the corporation "in jail" is not going to punish the people
On the other hand, compare Ewing, NE (where my wife is from) on MSN Virtual Earth v/s Google.
Try zooming in and out a little on both to see my point. Not only does searching for Ewing, NE on Google center it several miles SouthWest of where Ewing actually is, the satellite photos are virtually useless.
My biggest gripes with the MSN service are that it breaks my browsers back buttons and that the URL is not easy to type or remember.
It's clear that both have a ways to go before they will be where we want them to be but I'd give the edge to Google right now.
Well, to be fair, you would have to note that MSN put roadmaps right on top of the photos within days of Google launching this feature so it's extremely unlikely that they copied it (not enough time) and more likely that they were planning this all along and were just a little late to the party.
Hitler was a socialist. Nazi stands for National Socialism.
They have made a common cause of defeating the US and the establishment of a democracy in Iraq by killing as many people as they can.
It's not Bush who's torturing and killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, it's Al Qaeda and the Baathists - the very people some on the left would like to see us turn the country over to. Unfortunately enough in the American public are gullible enough to accept it as being Bush's fault.
Virtual PC will run like a champ on the Intel machines since a lot of the work it does right now would become redundant. However, that will most likely require MS to release a new version of it. With the currently available versions, it will probably run dog slow since it would have to first emulate Intel on the PPC and then the OS emulates those PPC instructions on the Intel CPU.
Actually, I haven't made up my mind about abortion. On the one hand, I resent the idea of governments telling people what to do with their life without affecting the rights of others. On the other hand, there is a need to protect the life of those who can't protect their own. It all boils down to whether or not you consider an unborn fetus a "human life" and unfortunately I don't see any clear medical or philosophical argument establishing one way or the other.
I'm also a pragmatist. It's clear that a lot of people feel very strongly on the subject and that a majority of people support abortion rights. I'm all for a constitutional amendment enumerating it as an unalienable right if it gets us back to talking about the more important things.
Not Scalia's, Souter's. Scalia is one of the most "conservative" judges on the bench and he voted in dissent of the eminent domain abuse. Souter, one of the most "liberal" judges, voted for it. Scalia is the Democrats example of a terrible judge and Souter is their "ideal" judge.
... and Roe v Wade.
Roe v Wade was made on a shaky foundation. It was a clearly bizarre interpretation of the constitution. Unfortunately the only way to preserve the right to abortions is to either amend the constitution or continue to keep the SCOTUS stacked with judges who support abortion rights and who are willing to disregard what the constitution says. Unfortunately, it is too hard to amend the constitution and even though a majority of the people support abortion rights, it is virtually impossible to get such an amendment through. This issue is important enough to enough people that we will continue to have people oppose constructionists and support activist judges for this reason alone.
Umm.. who do you think dissented on the marijuana case(besides O'Connor)? Rehnquist and Thomas - constructionists. It was the activists who supported expanding the federal governments powers to stop states from legalizing marijuana.
Who do you think dissented in the Kelo v/s New London property-grab case (besides O'Connor)? Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist - constructionists.
Both cases clearly supported the so-called right-wing agenda: big business and banning "immorality", yet these so-called conservative judges dissented in these cases. It's because they are constructionists, not conservatives.
The "checks and balances" are not about right wing v/s left wing. The "checks and balances" refer to the job of the SCOTUS to prevent the legislature from making laws that violate the constitution. Period. We shouldn't be having "rightist" or "leftist" judges at all. We should be having Constructionists - i.e. those who rule based on what the law is, not what they want the law to be.
Clarence Thomas is a constructionist, not a Conservative. His dissenting opinions in the marijuana and private-property-grab decisions are consistent with his positions.
We need more Constructionists on the bench. The opposite of constructionist judges is autocratic ones.
It's sad how much the lack of a constitutional amendment supporting abortion rights is going to harm this nation. I wish we could get such an amendment into the constitution in the next few years so people will have no reason to fear constructionists and we don't drift towards an autocratic SCOTUS.
How the heck is the parent Flamebait? The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret ambiguous law, not substitute it with the law they'd like to see. A state where judges are allowed to make up law is an autocracy, not a democracy. The task of making law should be left up to the legislature, not usurped by the judiciary.
That being said, Sandra was one of the few judges who dissented against the recent property-grab decision. My worry is that Bush will nominate someone who is right-wing rather than a Constructionist to replace her. Someone who makes laws from scratch to favor the right is just as bad as or worse than a judge who makes laws from scratch to favor the left.
No, being a swing voter has nothing to do with being Left or Right. 4 of of the justices on the SCOTUS currently are "constructionists", i.e. they believe that their job is to resolve ambiguities in the Constitution by figuring out what the people who wrote it most likely meant when they wrote it. 4 others believe that the Constitution is a "living document" and that their job is to resolve ambiguities by applying modern interpretations to the words in the document. Conservatives like the constructionists because their rulings tend to support their own agendas and likewise the liberals tend to like the "living document" wing because their rulings tend to conform to their agenda.
O'Connor is a "swing" voter because sometimes she reasons based upon a strict interpretation and at other times reasons based upon a more creative interpretation of the constitution. It has nothing to do with Centrism. The fact that constructionists are aligned with the right and the "living document" wing is aligned with the left is merely an accident of what the constitution actually is.
Sounds like his webserver was running perl.
Oh, wait. That didn't make any sense.
Slow news day, eh?
I remember seeing a picture that says a thousand words about this a few years ago.
Because the current US tort system allows you to sue the person with the biggest pockets regardless of who holds the biggest responsibility for damages. Homeowner shoots burglar? Sue the gun company.
In a market where price is determined by supply, a charge on a manufacturer will simply be passed on as a cost to the consumer.
On the other hand, in a market where price is determined by demand, a charge at sale time will be passed on to the manufacturer in terms of lower sales/ a worse price.
There is no difference between making it a tax on the manufacturer v/s a tax on the consumer.
Bah. The braided stainless steel wire probably only ensures that connectivity exists. Put a jumper wire around where you plan to cut the wire, cut it and hand it to a buddy.
Microsoft's first priority should be to close the holes in its products that let viruses, spyware, spambots, mushrooms, toadstools, or whatever grow in their customers' computers.
Let me guess. You're one of those people who believe the FBI and CIA should stop doing everything they do because the #1 priority should be to catch Osama?
Software is a complex beast. They probably have as many people working on security as the codebase can handle. You can't expect to increase productivity simply by throwing more developers at a problem because pretty soon you'll get to a point where the devs are just stepping on each others toes instead of being productive.
Phatak is not India. He's a professor in one college in India.
:-)
Knowing Phatak, though, I'm pretty sure he did nothing to dissuade the reporter from thinking he represented the entire country
It's more than that.
Your car consumes less gas while coasting to a stop (in gear - as is the case if you have an automatic) than it does while it is idling. While coasting, the momentum of the car is driving the engine and maintaining the RPM needed to not stall, while idling consumes gas.