The US does not in fact use a free-market economy.
You are as misguided as GP. The statements about the benefits of free markets vs. central planning are mathematical facts because the two systems only really exist as mathematical models. The reason central planning doesn't work is the same reason that free markets do not really work--they make hideously incorrect assumptions about human behavoir. They make different incorrect assumptions, but they are both incorrect all the same.
In order for anyone to be considered guilty of a crime you have to have both an illegal act, and the intent to commit that act.
Lori Drew INTENDED to cause harm to megan meier.
In your hypothetical scenario there is no intent.
Now we can argue about the slippery slope of a law against cyber-bullying given the difficulty of establishing intent. But if you want to make comparisons, use apples not oranges.
Congratulations you go to the shittiest college in the world.
My dorm building had what I assume was its own T3 connection at the time. We (a floor filled with science and engineering students) tried to kill it and couldn't.
Yes, but the jury remains free in any case to refuse to convict on the grounds that they consider the law unjust. The simple solution is to not confess to believing in jury nullification.
The supreme court has always allowed for jury nullification. They just also allowed that the government doesn't have to tell you about it or encourage it in anyway.
You're wrong in most jurisdictions in the US. If you are carrying a firearm in public, a police officer can require you to present your permit (I wouldn't be surprised to find that a state or two doesn't allow this, but AFAIK its universal). If you do not have the permit on you, you are in violation of the gun control law (again, might be a state or two that is less strict, but AFAIK this is universal).
So, if a law enforcement officer sees a person carrying a firearm they can demand to see the permit. No permit = probable cause. Same as when they pull you over and ask for your driver's license. No license = probable cause that you are driving illegally.
I have to point out that your statement that criminals are able to resist arrest much more successfully due to the legality of guns is absurd.
Why do I say this?
Because the VAST majority of all firearms used in the commission of crimes are already illegally obtained. Making them more illegal isn't going to change anything.
Why is what the drunk driver hit (or didn't hit) relevant to the moral repugnancy of the crime? A moral violation can only be made by a choice. A person chooses to drive drunk. They do not choose who they happen to run into (or not as the case may be). Therefore, drunk driving must be equally morally repugnant in all cases regardless of whether the driver hits a child, a child rapist, or no one at all.
The only exception to this I can think of is in a case where the drunk driver takes someone with him inside his car.
And of course, we can argue diminished capacity all damn day as well.
I'm glad you started out a post disagreeing with me by repeating my last sentence. I said it doesn't always work. But, in my experience it is the only thing that MIGHT work.
But think of the children!!!! If pedophiles could vote, they would be at polling places!!! Some polling places are in people's homes! IF you let felons vote then you are letting pedophiles into people's homes! In fact, you are forcing people to let them into their homes! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!/psychosis
Slashdot Mirror
Too much grinding in that game.
The US does not in fact use a free-market economy.
You are as misguided as GP. The statements about the benefits of free markets vs. central planning are mathematical facts because the two systems only really exist as mathematical models. The reason central planning doesn't work is the same reason that free markets do not really work--they make hideously incorrect assumptions about human behavoir. They make different incorrect assumptions, but they are both incorrect all the same.
You're missing the point: intent.
In order for anyone to be considered guilty of a crime you have to have both an illegal act, and the intent to commit that act.
Lori Drew INTENDED to cause harm to megan meier.
In your hypothetical scenario there is no intent.
Now we can argue about the slippery slope of a law against cyber-bullying given the difficulty of establishing intent. But if you want to make comparisons, use apples not oranges.
I like the way you think.
Lower likelihood of breaking things horribly?
You don't use Windows much do you?
Congratulations you go to the shittiest college in the world.
My dorm building had what I assume was its own T3 connection at the time. We (a floor filled with science and engineering students) tried to kill it and couldn't.
You must not have bothered to RTFA, because the point of the second portion of the article basically was that their margin of error was at least 10%.
Yes, but the jury remains free in any case to refuse to convict on the grounds that they consider the law unjust. The simple solution is to not confess to believing in jury nullification.
Nothing takes the fun out of porn.
The supreme court has always allowed for jury nullification. They just also allowed that the government doesn't have to tell you about it or encourage it in anyway.
Too late.
Even in Los Angeles, its middle class. Median household income in City of Los Angeles is about $51k.
You're wrong in most jurisdictions in the US. If you are carrying a firearm in public, a police officer can require you to present your permit (I wouldn't be surprised to find that a state or two doesn't allow this, but AFAIK its universal). If you do not have the permit on you, you are in violation of the gun control law (again, might be a state or two that is less strict, but AFAIK this is universal).
So, if a law enforcement officer sees a person carrying a firearm they can demand to see the permit. No permit = probable cause. Same as when they pull you over and ask for your driver's license. No license = probable cause that you are driving illegally.
I have to point out that your statement that criminals are able to resist arrest much more successfully due to the legality of guns is absurd.
Why do I say this?
Because the VAST majority of all firearms used in the commission of crimes are already illegally obtained. Making them more illegal isn't going to change anything.
I think they were two separate statement's about the nature of government. Not a single joint one.
What the fuck are you smoking? Share some of that shit.
I commend you for the intellectual faculty to dissect the man's thoughts at a neuro-linguistic level.
I am saddened to inform you though, that he has never heard of either past-perfect or future imperfect. Its well beyond his intellect.
Why is what the drunk driver hit (or didn't hit) relevant to the moral repugnancy of the crime? A moral violation can only be made by a choice. A person chooses to drive drunk. They do not choose who they happen to run into (or not as the case may be). Therefore, drunk driving must be equally morally repugnant in all cases regardless of whether the driver hits a child, a child rapist, or no one at all. The only exception to this I can think of is in a case where the drunk driver takes someone with him inside his car. And of course, we can argue diminished capacity all damn day as well.
Back then we called them Programs, Services, and Daemons too.
Which still makes the point that entering a building through a closed and unlocked door is NOT breaking and entering.
Unless that person is posting as an AC on slashdot.
France in 1799? Russia in 1918? Cuba in 1956? China in 1948? I'm sure I can keep on going.
Unless the rules of the game say shoot the guy with the most. Just saying.
I'm glad you started out a post disagreeing with me by repeating my last sentence. I said it doesn't always work. But, in my experience it is the only thing that MIGHT work.
But think of the children!!!! If pedophiles could vote, they would be at polling places!!! Some polling places are in people's homes! IF you let felons vote then you are letting pedophiles into people's homes! In fact, you are forcing people to let them into their homes! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! /psychosis