So you're saying that if a person, without a computer, were to assume disguises for the purpose of harassing and bullying another person, even going so far as to encourage them to harm themselves, as this woman did, and the person ended up comitting suicide, that wouldn't fit the legal definition of manslaughter?
I guarantee in that situation the DA would drawing up charges faster than you could blink.
The EPA, as a federal agency, must side with the Administration that makes its Appointments.
Were people here complaining about the scientists the federal government was siding with the last 8 years?
The previous Official View (tm) was one you didn't agree with, so you were critical. This is a view you agree with, so you are not critical. (You in the general sense, not the parent specifically.)
It's human nature, everyone does it, and it's an entirely separate issue from whether or not you happen to be right.
The whole point of the scientific process is to eliminate this problem.
This article is about a social issue, and it has nearly nothing to do with science... it's all about people, power, and censorship.
Not to mention the effect it would have on the weather. Harvesting energy from the wind on such a large scale is going to change weather patterns and create deserts.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, if you normalize accidental and criminal deaths across all industrialized nations, (i.e. eliminate deaths that do not pertain to the relevent healthcare systems), the US has the highest life expectancy of any industrialized nation.
Our problem is not that we don't have excellent health care, our problem is that we're violent idiots.
As someone who knows many doctors, I will tell you flat out that if that figure includes malpractice insurance it's either a flat out lie, or product of ridiculously bad methodology.
I think the fear is more that, like Social Security, they don't trust that it isn't going to completely fuck us later BECAUSE we can't kill the program.
Even the suggestion, let alone reality, of a poor minimum wage worker or homeless person getting access to universal health care is abhorrent.
That's just not how things are supposed to work.
Poor people are supposed to be...poor.
If you really think most people, conservative or otherwise, actually hate people who are poor, you've been completely brainwashed.
It's the liberal equivilent of calling everyone who disagrees with you unpatriotic.
I always get a kick out of people who think that SCOTUS justices go through that much effort to time their replacement.
Many, though not all, Justices have little interest in the particular politics of the week, and have more concern for whether or not their replacement will bring a decorum, sensibility and intelligence to the court which befits the seat which they are giving up.
I doubt Ginsburg will conciously wait until the Dems have a supermajority for the purpose of stuffing something down the republicans throats. And I also seriously doubt the dems (or the Repubs) getting a supermajority period for the foreseeable future.
Voters in this country have pretty much spoken: you have one term to make a difference, or they'll find someone else who will.
I don't think that has to do with party lines as much as frustration, and honestly I view THAT as a good thing.
So you're really making the argument that despite the fact I went through the trouble of replying to a post describing a difference between the US Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of France, I had no idea that the US Supreme Court possibly dealt with any criminal cases at all.
That is what is called a subordinate clause, and while pulling it out like that does indeed give the meaning you are implying, as a subordinate clause it takes on its true meaning with the previous clause. In other words, within the context of primary cases which I was discussing, SCOTUS only reviews them if they are appealed by a group or individual.
Where in the world did I claim it was limitted to civil suits? The use of the word primary implies other uses or purposes for something. Something cannot have a primary purpose without also having secondary or tertiary purposes as well.
As much as the people here on Slashdot are anxious to prove how much smarter they are than the average poster, comments should slow down and actually READ what they are responding to.
That's actually the PRIMARY function for SCOTUS as well, the only difference being that the US Supreme Court only rules on laws for which the Federal Government is sued by a group of or a single US Citizen.
Slashdot Mirror
All that porn is taking up a lot of space...
So you're saying that if a person, without a computer, were to assume disguises for the purpose of harassing and bullying another person, even going so far as to encourage them to harm themselves, as this woman did, and the person ended up comitting suicide, that wouldn't fit the legal definition of manslaughter?
I guarantee in that situation the DA would drawing up charges faster than you could blink.
That's because a similar situation without a computer would have been manslaughter. (Homicide without intent.)
The addition of a computer should not fuzzy this.
I would just appreciate if scientists could explain whether autism is developmental or genetic. I haven't seen anything diffinitive either way.
The EPA, as a federal agency, must side with the Administration that makes its Appointments.
Were people here complaining about the scientists the federal government was siding with the last 8 years?
The previous Official View (tm) was one you didn't agree with, so you were critical. This is a view you agree with, so you are not critical. (You in the general sense, not the parent specifically.)
It's human nature, everyone does it, and it's an entirely separate issue from whether or not you happen to be right.
The whole point of the scientific process is to eliminate this problem.
This article is about a social issue, and it has nearly nothing to do with science... it's all about people, power, and censorship.
C'mon, lets be serious.
All governments are about control, and they want to control the children as much as the adults.
Not to mention the effect it would have on the weather. Harvesting energy from the wind on such a large scale is going to change weather patterns and create deserts.
And Liberals are unpatriotic by the actual definition.
I guess the point was entirely lost on you.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, if you normalize accidental and criminal deaths across all industrialized nations, (i.e. eliminate deaths that do not pertain to the relevent healthcare systems), the US has the highest life expectancy of any industrialized nation.
Our problem is not that we don't have excellent health care, our problem is that we're violent idiots.
As someone who knows many doctors, I will tell you flat out that if that figure includes malpractice insurance it's either a flat out lie, or product of ridiculously bad methodology.
How is it getting worse results? Our actual medical results are much better than Canada or the UK.
Tort = 0.5% of health care spending.
Tort insurance >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.5% of health care spending.
You don't have to be conservative to understand that.
I think the fear is more that, like Social Security, they don't trust that it isn't going to completely fuck us later BECAUSE we can't kill the program.
If you really think most people, conservative or otherwise, actually hate people who are poor, you've been completely brainwashed.
It's the liberal equivilent of calling everyone who disagrees with you unpatriotic.
You don't seem to understand the word "mandated".
Are you implying that a person's passwords to their personal accounts on websites are subject to public information requirements?
Because the FBI has maintained that obtaining a person's passwords without their consent is a crime.
I always get a kick out of people who think that SCOTUS justices go through that much effort to time their replacement.
Many, though not all, Justices have little interest in the particular politics of the week, and have more concern for whether or not their replacement will bring a decorum, sensibility and intelligence to the court which befits the seat which they are giving up.
I doubt Ginsburg will conciously wait until the Dems have a supermajority for the purpose of stuffing something down the republicans throats. And I also seriously doubt the dems (or the Repubs) getting a supermajority period for the foreseeable future.
Voters in this country have pretty much spoken: you have one term to make a difference, or they'll find someone else who will.
I don't think that has to do with party lines as much as frustration, and honestly I view THAT as a good thing.
So you're really making the argument that despite the fact I went through the trouble of replying to a post describing a difference between the US Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of France, I had no idea that the US Supreme Court possibly dealt with any criminal cases at all.
My guess is that you're just being an asshole.
That is what is called a subordinate clause, and while pulling it out like that does indeed give the meaning you are implying, as a subordinate clause it takes on its true meaning with the previous clause. In other words, within the context of primary cases which I was discussing, SCOTUS only reviews them if they are appealed by a group or individual.
Hope that cleared it up for you.
Where in the world did I claim it was limitted to civil suits? The use of the word primary implies other uses or purposes for something. Something cannot have a primary purpose without also having secondary or tertiary purposes as well.
As much as the people here on Slashdot are anxious to prove how much smarter they are than the average poster, comments should slow down and actually READ what they are responding to.
Notice I used the word "primary".
They built this facility early this decade.
That's actually the PRIMARY function for SCOTUS as well, the only difference being that the US Supreme Court only rules on laws for which the Federal Government is sued by a group of or a single US Citizen.
Obviously the population of Tiger Fish and Lion Fish are going to explode. We're playing God I tell you.
Perhaps I should have clarified: native companies.