"Why do I click 'Start' to stop?"
I don't think the word start was ever intended to be reflective of all functions of the machine, but rather a starting point for beginners. I've always wondered how people that are troubled by this phrasing manage to close their cereal boxes after reading the phrase "---open here--" on the top.
I watched that video, and Smoot-Hawley most certainly did _not_ cause the great depression, nor did Sowell say that. Most economists seem to agree that the act helped prolong the great depression, but that is a far cry from the cause. The economy doesn't heal from black tuesday after a few months and then suddenly get taken down by an overzealous tariff. Next you'll say that the cash for clunkers caused the recent recession.
that's why you use a short honk for a "heads up" notification and longer blast for "decon 3" emergencies; the same way many cars beep when you lock them but blare when the care alarm is set off.
I think intent and specificity would have to come into play, or providing any service to the public could be treason.
it's easy to give in to vague threats from the govt, but if HSBC can get away with targeted money laundering for terrorists with a nominal fine it's harder to make the case the government would follow through.
However, just to be sure, I'm not paying taxes anymore. I'm feel reasonably assured that some of the tax money will get into terrorist hands, and I don't want to be a traitor.
That's fucking stupid. Is calling someone a dick then a gender specific derision that gets you similarly offended? "Civilized people" (there's a loaded term, hope you weren't saying that to someone of color) don't get offended by what random schmoes (see what I did there?) say on the internet.
Ah, hell, I see what you mean. I never saw the newer statute that was being referred to as the SYG law. My mistake.
It's specific language of the law, full stop, with the defendant's name interjected. From the transcript from the jury instructions as recorded (page 12):
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had he right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony
The actual law 776.013(3)
(3)A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Regardless, the jury instructions included the specific language of the law, it _did_ enter the courtroom, and may have affected the outcome (though I doubt it).
Disclaimer: this statement does not remotely endorse any of the drivel written by publiclurker above.
It's fairly easy to cherry pick scenarios in most "rights" we assume where the outcome is not what those defending it would prefer; for instance, the right to bear arms and accidental discharges killing children or right to free speech spreading hateful ideas. This hardly negates the underpinnings on why the rights are important, or why they exist in the first place.
I think the most interesting twist on your scenario would be if the would-be mother was strickened with a horrible disease that would cause unbearable pain, and wanted to euthanize herself. Does society have the right to to tell an individual he or she _must_ endure agonizing pain for the sake of another? To what extent does it have this right?
Certainly individual rights are a _huge_ part of almost all functioning democracies, but I think it's quite a different thing to say societies exist for the individual. I didn't actually set out to defend authoritarian governments when I questioned the premise of the primacy of the individual, because it doesn't seem to be a dichotomy. I think the preamble to the US constitution states a more comprehensive view:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Individual liberty is indeed a foundational element, but one of many parts of what society -- or, the one I'm guessing we're both a part of, the USA -- exists to protect.
News flash: Individuals do not exist for the sake of society, society exists for the individual.
That's an interesting notion. Could you expand on what you mean by this assertion? It seems to me that an individual binds to a society because it's better for him or her, but that notion seems unidirectional. Society exists for the good of the collective, and it's an individual's choice to associate.
I thought I responded yesterday, but I don't see the posted comment. I apologized for not getting the thrust of your comment, I mistook the "druggies" in the first line to be generalized to everyone involved in the transactions.
In response to your second reply, there are a few scenarios I would probably look the other way, but it almost always be at a risk to myself. Allowing illegal trade to go on in your neighborhood is asking for trouble in many cases, especially for drugs. In the petunias scenario, I doubt anyone's going to get shot over getting wilted flowers, but when you don't have the force of law behind your transactions things get out of hand quickly. I saw and heard about lots of violence and theft when I dabbled in construction, when folks had to try and remedy disagreements themselves or get screwed out of money trading in illegal labor.
In the instances/scenarios I reference, there is nothing immoral about the objects themselves, but there's a reasonable risk that there will be blood when things go sideways and you can't go to the law to set things right.
Snowden didn't give specifics, but he did say this in response to the question:
2) How many sets of the documents you disclosed did you make, and how many different people have them? If anything happens to you, do they still exist?
All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower
"taking advantage" you say. Someone who is running an illegal business out of a private residence and flagrantly breaking all sorts of laws, you think this person should _not_ report this sort of activity? If the person was illegally selling petunias out of their garage I'd probably report it, if it was bringing all sorts of riffraff to my neighborhood and keeping me awake. I can sympathize with users, but sellers, hell no.
I get the feeling you are that manager from SF that can't hire developers. Sorry pal, I just can't move out there
"Hey Ivan, check your six." -- Sidewinder missile jacket patch, showing a Sidewinder driving up the tail of a Russian Su-27
