So only the poor unpaid can have free speech? Everybody else is just a shill and should be regulated? I'm not sure I like that at all... Even *with* the caveat of "if you make X dollars." How is this not regulating free speech? Just because you don't like astroturfing doesn't mean it should be illegal!
And since when did a lobbyist become anybody who voices a political opinion? Lobbyists are the slime that try to sway politicians, not the public...
Christ, the Republicans want to spy on me and issue me a number, the Democrats want to charge me money for doing things "they don't like" and control what I say to whom. Will the friggin' government get off my back already!?!?
Eh? From the first link in the google search I linked to:
"Affect" is usually a verb meaning "to influence".
...
"Effect" is usually a noun meaning "result".
There is a noun meaning for "affect" and a verb meaning for "effect", but they're uncommon. So you go ahead and come up with your clever term, and I'll come up with one for when one uses it inappropriately.
but if you think about all that they take care of (advertising, risk of producing your album (which if it's your first could be a total loser bringing in no money), etc.), it doesn't sound too rediculous.
Until you find out that all those expenses are effectively taken from the artist's cut. They have to pay it back...
Lawyers have the interest of he who is paying them in mind. Steve probably wanted lawyers who were specifically working in his best interest rather than the company's best interest? I wouldn't read too much into it myself.
You misunderstand. Slavery wasn't the *only* issue, though it was one of them. Sure the south has to share in the guilt for the war (perhaps even take the lions share), but the dispute was over far more than civil rights. States rights vs. federalism was a very big issue for much of the early years of the US. The battle is all but lost these days as the Federal government has grown in power over the years. Federal control of many aspects of life is now taken for granted.
Lincoln was not ideologically driven and he was doing what was morally correct for ANY time period:
You think so? There was more to the Civil war than slavery you know. In fact there was tension between the federalists and states rights folks for some time. Many in the south saw/see the Civil war as a federal power grab by the north and believe Lincoln just used slavery as an excuse (a good one mind you, but a red herring none-the-less).
In fact, Lincoln and GWB have something else in common. GWB ran (the first time) on a platform that would not get us involved in a foreign war. Lincoln's inauguration speech talked about allowing the south to keep slaves...
This is an idea that struck me a long time ago ('98ish). Since Linux does not 'compete' per se, it cannot lose. At least not in the traditional way.
I''m not sure things 'need' to be done within a time period as ESR seems to believe. The steady march of FLOSS is what's kept it alive and growing so far and I don't think that'll change.
Whups, I'm confused (too close to Christmas). I was thinking that the Judge's have the right to over-ride the Jury (not Jury Nullification, which is the exact opposite of what I was thinking). But I'm not sure on this... Bleh. No more posting on/. for me today.:-)
"Jury Nullification" is for when a judge deems that a jury did not rule according to the law (eg. ruling "innocent" because the jury feels the law itself is unjust). A jury is only supposed to determine facts of the case. The law is the Judge's domain. I think Wikipedia can do a better job explaining it than I can.
Now seriously...which of those 3 seems most likely to be the founding fathers' intent?
None of the above. Seriously. "The jury of your peers" is about keeping a ruling class from passing judgment on the masses. It's one of the last lines of defense against corruption in the legal system.
Also, the judge explains to the jury the law involved, and the jury is allowed to ask questions about it. The jury is there to decide the truth, not the law.
This was an Italian study. It's common in Italy to have a glass of wine with every meal. Maybe even an after-dinner drink. It's not like in America where drinking is primarily done all at night at some bar....
I'm sorry, but did you *actually* call John F. Kerry an intellectual? Just because you have a low opinion of GWB does not mean any opponent is an intellectual...
But whose reason will you accept to acquit them of murder? Yours "he tore my heart open and destroyed my happiness" or the deranged "he was using microwave transmitters into my brain to take over my mind"? In other words, what sounds reasonable to you might not sound reasonable to other people. And we were talking about feelings to justify murder, feelings are always private.
Some things are obvious, others must be carefully decided upon. "He killed my family and made me watch" is a far cry from "I didn't like his slacks." Any reasonable human being can see that (even if you don't believe in capital punishment).
I wasn't talking about "feelings" but rather intent. Intent is a large part of sentencing. 1st degree murder (premeditated, cruel and unusual), 2nd degree (rage, unplanned), manslaughter (accidental), etc. Murder in the legal sense means "Unlawful killing," though you may define it differently I suppose. I always viewed murder as "killing for no good reason" which I believe is similar to the legal definition (enemies in war, self-defense, state sponsored executions, etc.).
I would say that in the case of one or more first degree murder convictions where the jury not only finds the defendant guilty beyond a "shadow of a doubt" but beyond "any doubt" (such cases do exist) then capital punishment is completely fair and appropriate.
1) because your prospective victim is human.
I don't think I am alone in this, some religion even made it one of it's commandments.
I simply don't accept that "personhood" is a strong enough justification for somebody guilty of such a terrible crime.
And some religions made human sacrifice part of their ceremony. Just because a large popular cult believes in something doesn't make it true or good.
That's *very* cold of you. Justice is a large part of healing for victims of violent crime. To deny them such would be just about the worse thing you could do IMHO.
This is probably flamebait, and should be modded as such I suppose, but I just gotta let it out.
Your post is a bunch of commie "the state matters more than the individual" crap. If we ignore the feelings of the individuals in favor of the state you will breed resentment of the state by the individuals. Since when does a crime committed against *me* only concern the state? Since when did the devastated victims become a non-entity in the search of justice? For *whom* are we seeking justice anyway?!?!
Can you see us down here from atop your high horse? Seriously, I think you grossly underestimate the amount of "wrong" a single person can do. There are times when the sins committed by an individual are so great there really is no way to obtain justice or peace afterwards. There is no way that individual can ever repay for their sins, no way they can *ever* be properly punished, and thus the only payment they can offer is with their own life.
Is it revenge? Maybe. Is it punishment? Sorta. I don't claim the victims will feel any better afterwards, because nothing can really replace what was lost. It's about the convicted paying for their wrong doing. The one thing it *does* offer for the victims is true closure.
Would I pull the lever? You bet. Does that make me a potential murderer? Well, in your eyes I suppose it does. But murder is also defined by the *reason* as well as the action. I consider it to be justifiable homicide myself. You have taken from me something so valuable and irreplaceable that your own life is forfeit. Not to mention the credible danger you now pose to society as a whole.
Sure there are sometimes gray areas of doubt and uncertainty about whether the person convicted is the right one. But can you give me one good reason why somebody convicted *beyond any doubt* (not just "reasonable doubt") of multiple murders should ever be allowed to live afterwards? And why I would not be justified in calling for their execution?
I've heard the "stooping to their level" argument and I don't feel it comes close to holding water. I haven't stooped to their level. I didn't lash out at an undeserving innocent person and kill them. I lashed out at somebody who tore my heart open and destroyed my happiness. There is a very big difference between the killing of an innocent person and the killing of one who deserves it. I won't make it pretty with fancy words, it's all killing in the end. But the *reason* is a world of a difference. You can pretend it doesn't, but I feel history and reason are on my side. And you can rest assured that you will be safe should you run into me in a dark alley.
Uh, no they didn't. In both elections, more people voted against him than for him, or at least thought they did. And many of those that voted for him wouldn't have if the media had been more honest with them and not repeatedly worked to cover up his lies.
Wow. Can you also convince yourself that the sky is green and that the Sun rises in the west (or at least it *would* if the media stopped lying about the east)?
BTW, with all the close elections in the mid-terms where is all the nuts claiming the Democrats *stole* the elections? Or does that only happen when it's Republicans winning?
Slashdot Mirror
And since when did a lobbyist become anybody who voices a political opinion? Lobbyists are the slime that try to sway politicians, not the public...
Christ, the Republicans want to spy on me and issue me a number, the Democrats want to charge me money for doing things "they don't like" and control what I say to whom. Will the friggin' government get off my back already!?!?
"Affect" is usually a verb meaning "to influence".
...
"Effect" is usually a noun meaning "result".
There is a noun meaning for "affect" and a verb meaning for "effect", but they're uncommon. So you go ahead and come up with your clever term, and I'll come up with one for when one uses it inappropriately.
Slashdot has enough trouble with grammar without you confusing things. :-P
They can each be both, but the typical cases are "affect" as a verb, and "effect" as a noun. Linky.
but if you think about all that they take care of (advertising, risk of producing your album (which if it's your first could be a total loser bringing in no money), etc.), it doesn't sound too rediculous.
Until you find out that all those expenses are effectively taken from the artist's cut. They have to pay it back...
Why guess? They're a publicly traded company.
OMG! Stop the presses! Does anybody else know about this?
But please, more clinton blowjob cracks; god knows they're so relevant....
Relevant like bringing up Tony Snow in a discussion about Apple?
More like Clinton denying he had sex with an intern. I love bad partisan analogies!
Lawyers have the interest of he who is paying them in mind. Steve probably wanted lawyers who were specifically working in his best interest rather than the company's best interest? I wouldn't read too much into it myself.
You misunderstand. Slavery wasn't the *only* issue, though it was one of them. Sure the south has to share in the guilt for the war (perhaps even take the lions share), but the dispute was over far more than civil rights. States rights vs. federalism was a very big issue for much of the early years of the US. The battle is all but lost these days as the Federal government has grown in power over the years. Federal control of many aspects of life is now taken for granted.
Lincoln was not ideologically driven and he was doing what was morally correct for ANY time period:
You think so? There was more to the Civil war than slavery you know. In fact there was tension between the federalists and states rights folks for some time. Many in the south saw/see the Civil war as a federal power grab by the north and believe Lincoln just used slavery as an excuse (a good one mind you, but a red herring none-the-less).
In fact, Lincoln and GWB have something else in common. GWB ran (the first time) on a platform that would not get us involved in a foreign war. Lincoln's inauguration speech talked about allowing the south to keep slaves...
I''m not sure things 'need' to be done within a time period as ESR seems to believe. The steady march of FLOSS is what's kept it alive and growing so far and I don't think that'll change.
Whups, I'm confused (too close to Christmas). I was thinking that the Judge's have the right to over-ride the Jury (not Jury Nullification, which is the exact opposite of what I was thinking). But I'm not sure on this... Bleh. No more posting on /. for me today. :-)
"Jury Nullification" is for when a judge deems that a jury did not rule according to the law (eg. ruling "innocent" because the jury feels the law itself is unjust). A jury is only supposed to determine facts of the case. The law is the Judge's domain. I think Wikipedia can do a better job explaining it than I can.
Can you partisan wackos ever see beyond the red and blue and realize you both suck?
Now seriously...which of those 3 seems most likely to be the founding fathers' intent?
None of the above. Seriously. "The jury of your peers" is about keeping a ruling class from passing judgment on the masses. It's one of the last lines of defense against corruption in the legal system.
Also, the judge explains to the jury the law involved, and the jury is allowed to ask questions about it. The jury is there to decide the truth, not the law.
This was an Italian study. It's common in Italy to have a glass of wine with every meal. Maybe even an after-dinner drink. It's not like in America where drinking is primarily done all at night at some bar....
Because it's not what you say that matters, but who you are!
I'm sorry, but did you *actually* call John F. Kerry an intellectual? Just because you have a low opinion of GWB does not mean any opponent is an intellectual...
Some things are obvious, others must be carefully decided upon. "He killed my family and made me watch" is a far cry from "I didn't like his slacks." Any reasonable human being can see that (even if you don't believe in capital punishment).
I wasn't talking about "feelings" but rather intent. Intent is a large part of sentencing. 1st degree murder (premeditated, cruel and unusual), 2nd degree (rage, unplanned), manslaughter (accidental), etc. Murder in the legal sense means "Unlawful killing," though you may define it differently I suppose. I always viewed murder as "killing for no good reason" which I believe is similar to the legal definition (enemies in war, self-defense, state sponsored executions, etc.).
I would say that in the case of one or more first degree murder convictions where the jury not only finds the defendant guilty beyond a "shadow of a doubt" but beyond "any doubt" (such cases do exist) then capital punishment is completely fair and appropriate.
1) because your prospective victim is human. I don't think I am alone in this, some religion even made it one of it's commandments.
I simply don't accept that "personhood" is a strong enough justification for somebody guilty of such a terrible crime.
And some religions made human sacrifice part of their ceremony. Just because a large popular cult believes in something doesn't make it true or good.
For your sake I hope this is just a troll...
That's *very* cold of you. Justice is a large part of healing for victims of violent crime. To deny them such would be just about the worse thing you could do IMHO.
Your post is a bunch of commie "the state matters more than the individual" crap. If we ignore the feelings of the individuals in favor of the state you will breed resentment of the state by the individuals. Since when does a crime committed against *me* only concern the state? Since when did the devastated victims become a non-entity in the search of justice? For *whom* are we seeking justice anyway?!?!
Rant off...
Is it revenge? Maybe. Is it punishment? Sorta. I don't claim the victims will feel any better afterwards, because nothing can really replace what was lost. It's about the convicted paying for their wrong doing. The one thing it *does* offer for the victims is true closure.
Would I pull the lever? You bet. Does that make me a potential murderer? Well, in your eyes I suppose it does. But murder is also defined by the *reason* as well as the action. I consider it to be justifiable homicide myself. You have taken from me something so valuable and irreplaceable that your own life is forfeit. Not to mention the credible danger you now pose to society as a whole.
Sure there are sometimes gray areas of doubt and uncertainty about whether the person convicted is the right one. But can you give me one good reason why somebody convicted *beyond any doubt* (not just "reasonable doubt") of multiple murders should ever be allowed to live afterwards? And why I would not be justified in calling for their execution?
I've heard the "stooping to their level" argument and I don't feel it comes close to holding water. I haven't stooped to their level. I didn't lash out at an undeserving innocent person and kill them. I lashed out at somebody who tore my heart open and destroyed my happiness. There is a very big difference between the killing of an innocent person and the killing of one who deserves it. I won't make it pretty with fancy words, it's all killing in the end. But the *reason* is a world of a difference. You can pretend it doesn't, but I feel history and reason are on my side. And you can rest assured that you will be safe should you run into me in a dark alley.
Uh, no they didn't. In both elections, more people voted against him than for him, or at least thought they did. And many of those that voted for him wouldn't have if the media had been more honest with them and not repeatedly worked to cover up his lies.
Wow. Can you also convince yourself that the sky is green and that the Sun rises in the west (or at least it *would* if the media stopped lying about the east)?
BTW, with all the close elections in the mid-terms where is all the nuts claiming the Democrats *stole* the elections? Or does that only happen when it's Republicans winning?