You should, I set up the dichotomy to argue a point, not prove an absolute moral law.
GP was of the opinion that manipulating your superiors is always the morally wrong choice to make, and while I agree to that in most circumstances (for example, in TFA the main accusation is that the General in question was doing this to further his career, not help his men) - it's a morally wrong choice to make, there are circumstances where it would be the right choice.
While you're correct that several exemptions have been made for ex post facto laws, all of those exemptions are clear examples of congress and the Supreme Court using the constitution as toilet paper.
"It's okay because it doesn't constitute punishment." Even though it's punishing people Ex Post facto.
"It's okay because it's civil law, and ex post facto only applies to criminal law" Even though that's ridiculous.
"It's okay because it's regulatory." Even though the regulations have criminal consequences, making it a criminal law, AND it's punishing people.
Treaty violations happen all the time, this is true - but this is also an extremely high profile case. Almost every major news organization in both Europe and America are following this like hawks, and it would be impossible to claim a major breach like that to be a "mistake."
Car Analogy time:
Fender Benders happen all the time, they're normally legitimate mistakes, and get repaired by paying the deductible. Normally it doesn't even show up on your insurance as an accident.
Tailgating someone while a police car is riding beside the two of you, and then intentionally bumping into them has the potential to get you in much more serious legal problems, even if the actual damage you've done to the other car is the same.
I've been trying to find what Assange is actually charged with, but so far have only found secondary sources that tell widely different stories about what happened, what the official statements are, etc.
Yes, they're still your freaking children, and you should be able to have a good chance of being awarded custody.
The primary complaint I have with the existing justice system is that it will award custody of children to the mother unless it can be overwhelmingly proven that she's unfit to be raising her children. The bar for a man to be denied visitation rights is much lower comparatively, and child support will continue to be paid. It's entirely possible to have a situation where a man is barred from seeing his children, but must continue to pay child support for them. Leads to an awful lot of bitterness.
You've got an awful lot of good points, I could split hairs with you on a few of your comments, but haven't the inclination.
Only comment I have to add is you're doing yourself a disservice by insisting on using libertarian propaganda terminology. Using the word "counterfeit" to describe fiat money makes you come across as a crazy person, because it doesn't mean what you've defined it as meaning. Authorized printing of fiat currency can't be counterfeiting, because that word in this context refers to the unauthorized printing of money!
All that's necessary in a criminal trial is reasonable doubt. Someone testifying that they had no idea their computer was being used for a DDoS attack, coupled with an expert witness testifying that virus infections are common, and no other evidence (if someone uses dedicated DDoS software and leaves it on their computer after the attack, they deserve to be convicted) - would be enough for me to vote "not guilty" if I were on a jury.
it's difficult to tell the difference from the attackee's end, and nearly impossible to prove in a court of law. The defense can point to the existence of botnets and how easy it is to get infected, and furthermore deny all knowledge of the events, even if they were intentionally DDoSing.
There's a statute of limitations on most white collar crimes, and also on destroying evidence. Once 15 years or so (depends the crime, I think?) has passed, you're good to go.
Probably wouldn't seem very important by then, though.
I agree with you completely, I've got a few teacher friends who say similar things to what this woman said in the article. But, they say it privately, usually over drinks with non-associated friends, and they're well aware that saying them in public would get them fired.
Teaching kids is frustrating, and people need to vent sometimes. The only thing to remember is, if you need to work with people you're venting about, don't vent where they can hear you!
There is no such thing as a "correct" price point. The price *paid* for a given item is whatever the buyer decides the item is worth to them. The power ultimately lies with the consumer to decide whether or not he or she will buy said item for the offered price. Sometimes negotiation is possible, sometimes not. Granted, there are things in civilized society that we must pay for and have little say in its price (gasoline to get to work, electricity and gas for heating our homes). But if you want to grumble about that $60 video game, it does no good to be doing it whilst handing your credit card to the cashier.
As price for a particular product rises, the number of sales you get go down. This isn't a linear relationship, so you might be able to sell one million widgets for $50.00, two million widgets for $45.00, and ten million widgets for $35.00. The developer of Angry birds figured out it can keep development costs down to 1/10th of what they were, and sell fifty million widgets for $2.00, beating out the more expensive games.
The price point where number sold * price per unit = maximum possible profit is the correct price point, and it does exist. This is what the term means.
I didn't think you were right at first, but it turns out you are!
The legal arguement in this case was:
Lafe Solomon, the board’s counsel, said: “This is a fairly straightforward case under the National Labor Relations Act — whether it takes place on Facebook or at the water cooler, it was employees talking jointly about working conditions, in this case about their supervisor, and they have a right to do that.”
That act gives workers a federally protected right to form unions, and it prohibits employers from punishing workers — whether union or nonunion — for discussing working conditions or unionization.
Additionally, this is a federal labor law, so it applies even in states with At Will employment laws.
I parsed "Bad things that would involve prison time" as "physical and emotional abuse." If that's the case, calling the cops and getting them prison time would be an appropriate and reasonable reaction. I'm not sure how you jumped from that to "shooting up a school."
Google falls under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. Simply having an image appear on google search doesn't violate the copyright holder's rights. Keeping it up there after a copyright holder complained would indeed violate the holders rights.
At least, this is my understanding of the legal issues, I'm not a lawyer.
Rebuilding from scratch, has actually proven to be a very competitive long-term strategy. Brand new Factories incorporating state-of-the-art manufacturing processes tend to be tremendously efficient compared to legacy factories. It's a better strategy overall to shut down unprofitable factories here in the states until shipping costs become prohibitive and build brand new factories 10 years from now than it would be to continue operating as we have been at a loss, and have decades-old factories 10 years from now badly in need of modernization.
Unfortunately, while this is a GREAT idea from the point of view of owners and stockholders, it's a terrible plan for the employees at said factories, because they're out of a job, and have no marketable skills.
------
I, personally, already take a global perspective on things (I'm American, but I lived and worked in Germany for three years, and continue to travel often) - and am not terribly concerned about putting my fellow American citizens out of a job, especially compared to India or China. Honestly, while there might be a lot of complaints about this from all sides, America is still really the land of opportunity, jobs are available for people willing to put in the time and effort to gain the necessary skills, and even my unemployed peers here in the states still have a higher quality of life than all but the most industrious\lucky employed people in the poorer parts of the world.
Assuming he means illegal drugs, regardless of your opinion on whether or not they should be legal, being a habitual user shows the same disregard for the law as failing the "free criminal record" qualifier he mentioned.
Ideally, the only thing the employer actually cares about is the individual in question hasn't gotten caught meaning they're less likely to be a headache for HR.
in TFA he also indicated that, even if the board finds him guilty, the most they'll do is writing him a letter saying "Don't do it again."
If I had to guess, I'd say they're just going to delay until everyone has forgotten about how this is supposed to be a misdemeanor, not charge him with anything (because the complaint is stupid, but they don't want to ruffle bureaucratic feathers)
Slashdot Mirror
You should, I set up the dichotomy to argue a point, not prove an absolute moral law.
GP was of the opinion that manipulating your superiors is always the morally wrong choice to make, and while I agree to that in most circumstances (for example, in TFA the main accusation is that the General in question was doing this to further his career, not help his men) - it's a morally wrong choice to make, there are circumstances where it would be the right choice.
While you're correct that several exemptions have been made for ex post facto laws, all of those exemptions are clear examples of congress and the Supreme Court using the constitution as toilet paper.
"It's okay because it doesn't constitute punishment." Even though it's punishing people Ex Post facto.
"It's okay because it's civil law, and ex post facto only applies to criminal law" Even though that's ridiculous.
"It's okay because it's regulatory." Even though the regulations have criminal consequences, making it a criminal law, AND it's punishing people.
Everything I've read indicates he hasn't even been charged with anything.
This makes it very difficult to speculate on what exactly he would be charged with, and what penalties he would suffer if found guilty.
Treaty violations happen all the time, this is true - but this is also an extremely high profile case. Almost every major news organization in both Europe and America are following this like hawks, and it would be impossible to claim a major breach like that to be a "mistake."
Car Analogy time:
Fender Benders happen all the time, they're normally legitimate mistakes, and get repaired by paying the deductible. Normally it doesn't even show up on your insurance as an accident.
Tailgating someone while a police car is riding beside the two of you, and then intentionally bumping into them has the potential to get you in much more serious legal problems, even if the actual damage you've done to the other car is the same.
I've been trying to find what Assange is actually charged with, but so far have only found secondary sources that tell widely different stories about what happened, what the official statements are, etc.
Do you know where I can find the actual charges?
Yes, they're still your freaking children, and you should be able to have a good chance of being awarded custody.
The primary complaint I have with the existing justice system is that it will award custody of children to the mother unless it can be overwhelmingly proven that she's unfit to be raising her children. The bar for a man to be denied visitation rights is much lower comparatively, and child support will continue to be paid. It's entirely possible to have a situation where a man is barred from seeing his children, but must continue to pay child support for them. Leads to an awful lot of bitterness.
Getting the mission done with as few deaths as possible is the morally right thing for a commander to do.
If there is a choice to be made between manipulating senators, and getting your people killed, I'd choose manipulating congressmen any time.
If you're talking about diluting the value of currency, say "diluting the value of currency." That's the proper terminology.
"Counterfeiting" is still incorrect. Your link doesn't even agree with you, as it stresses the involvement of the mint in preventing coin clipping.
You've got an awful lot of good points, I could split hairs with you on a few of your comments, but haven't the inclination.
Only comment I have to add is you're doing yourself a disservice by insisting on using libertarian propaganda terminology. Using the word "counterfeit" to describe fiat money makes you come across as a crazy person, because it doesn't mean what you've defined it as meaning. Authorized printing of fiat currency can't be counterfeiting, because that word in this context refers to the unauthorized printing of money!
All that's necessary in a criminal trial is reasonable doubt. Someone testifying that they had no idea their computer was being used for a DDoS attack, coupled with an expert witness testifying that virus infections are common, and no other evidence (if someone uses dedicated DDoS software and leaves it on their computer after the attack, they deserve to be convicted) - would be enough for me to vote "not guilty" if I were on a jury.
it's difficult to tell the difference from the attackee's end, and nearly impossible to prove in a court of law. The defense can point to the existence of botnets and how easy it is to get infected, and furthermore deny all knowledge of the events, even if they were intentionally DDoSing.
The posts you linked to aren't funny, insightful, underrated, informative, or even entertaining.
There's a statute of limitations on most white collar crimes, and also on destroying evidence. Once 15 years or so (depends the crime, I think?) has passed, you're good to go.
Probably wouldn't seem very important by then, though.
I agree with you completely, I've got a few teacher friends who say similar things to what this woman said in the article. But, they say it privately, usually over drinks with non-associated friends, and they're well aware that saying them in public would get them fired.
Teaching kids is frustrating, and people need to vent sometimes. The only thing to remember is, if you need to work with people you're venting about, don't vent where they can hear you!
There is no such thing as a "correct" price point. The price *paid* for a given item is whatever the buyer decides the item is worth to them. The power ultimately lies with the consumer to decide whether or not he or she will buy said item for the offered price. Sometimes negotiation is possible, sometimes not. Granted, there are things in civilized society that we must pay for and have little say in its price (gasoline to get to work, electricity and gas for heating our homes). But if you want to grumble about that $60 video game, it does no good to be doing it whilst handing your credit card to the cashier.
As price for a particular product rises, the number of sales you get go down. This isn't a linear relationship, so you might be able to sell one million widgets for $50.00, two million widgets for $45.00, and ten million widgets for $35.00. The developer of Angry birds figured out it can keep development costs down to 1/10th of what they were, and sell fifty million widgets for $2.00, beating out the more expensive games.
The price point where number sold * price per unit = maximum possible profit is the correct price point, and it does exist. This is what the term means.
I didn't think you were right at first, but it turns out you are!
The legal arguement in this case was:
Lafe Solomon, the board’s counsel, said: “This is a fairly straightforward case under the National Labor Relations Act — whether it takes place on Facebook or at the water cooler, it was employees talking jointly about working conditions, in this case about their supervisor, and they have a right to do that.”
That act gives workers a federally protected right to form unions, and it prohibits employers from punishing workers — whether union or nonunion — for discussing working conditions or unionization.
Additionally, this is a federal labor law, so it applies even in states with At Will employment laws.
Continuing to employ someone who calls you a moron is moronic.
Alright, granted that's a problem.
I still don't see how you pulled "Columbine is a better option" out of this thread.
I parsed "Bad things that would involve prison time" as "physical and emotional abuse." If that's the case, calling the cops and getting them prison time would be an appropriate and reasonable reaction. I'm not sure how you jumped from that to "shooting up a school."
Google falls under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. Simply having an image appear on google search doesn't violate the copyright holder's rights. Keeping it up there after a copyright holder complained would indeed violate the holders rights.
At least, this is my understanding of the legal issues, I'm not a lawyer.
Rebuilding from scratch, has actually proven to be a very competitive long-term strategy. Brand new Factories incorporating state-of-the-art manufacturing processes tend to be tremendously efficient compared to legacy factories. It's a better strategy overall to shut down unprofitable factories here in the states until shipping costs become prohibitive and build brand new factories 10 years from now than it would be to continue operating as we have been at a loss, and have decades-old factories 10 years from now badly in need of modernization.
Unfortunately, while this is a GREAT idea from the point of view of owners and stockholders, it's a terrible plan for the employees at said factories, because they're out of a job, and have no marketable skills.
------
I, personally, already take a global perspective on things (I'm American, but I lived and worked in Germany for three years, and continue to travel often) - and am not terribly concerned about putting my fellow American citizens out of a job, especially compared to India or China. Honestly, while there might be a lot of complaints about this from all sides, America is still really the land of opportunity, jobs are available for people willing to put in the time and effort to gain the necessary skills, and even my unemployed peers here in the states still have a higher quality of life than all but the most industrious\lucky employed people in the poorer parts of the world.
Assuming he means illegal drugs, regardless of your opinion on whether or not they should be legal, being a habitual user shows the same disregard for the law as failing the "free criminal record" qualifier he mentioned.
Ideally, the only thing the employer actually cares about is the individual in question hasn't gotten caught meaning they're less likely to be a headache for HR.
Feather Indians are Native Americans
Dot Indians are from India.
People who use either phrase tend to not date either type for very long.
in TFA he also indicated that, even if the board finds him guilty, the most they'll do is writing him a letter saying "Don't do it again."
If I had to guess, I'd say they're just going to delay until everyone has forgotten about how this is supposed to be a misdemeanor, not charge him with anything (because the complaint is stupid, but they don't want to ruffle bureaucratic feathers)
ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH!