Wow, something so awful even some Gnome 3 users can't take it.
There was one report on a radio station that there are like 10 doctors in a whole country
That would NPR's report as well which stated 50 doctors total in Liberia after some of left during the beginning of the infection.
Of course considering the mess Liberia has been in for 20+ years this outbreak is relatively minor and only receiving attention due to sensationalism.
I think it should be infected people.
you forgot to read the summary or the article
Lindelof is a professed fan of BSG which is where he stole the ending to Lost. Why you would want to plagiarize such a pathetic cop out series finale is beyond me. It makes the ending to Dexter seem fucking brilliant.
Mediocre? You give far too much credit. Lost was perhaps the worst series ever made.
Exactly. Versus a properly configured host, It's a "difference" drummed up out of thin air so they can sell you "security".
pkg IS the default package management utility
pkgng is the project which spawned pkg * replacing the previous pkg_* tools
God refuses to give us the data from before he invented us
Before we invented him/it/the deity. Just one among humanities endless parade of gods.
but also cause and effect are relative to the spectator
Well I suppose facts and science are relative to a spectator...at least until they try to replicate them.
Having nukes didn't protect Pakistan from SEAL team six.
SEAL team six didn't attack a Pakistani resident under diplomatic protection. And despite Snowden's high value, it's nowhere near what bin Laden's was. It's more the range Assange and we can all see what's happened there.
That's actually a really interesting astroturf. I could see it working.
You know all of the 6 Android users who will dump their platform due to this? Your uber vigilante security circle didn't check this before? It seems your circle has bigger problems than just using potentially compromisable settings.
But, briefly: Of course the law might be unjust, but how are you going to create a rule that protects people who violated unjust laws, without also protecting people who violated the good ones?
That is an entirely different question than the legitimacy of the 5th amendment. It's also a question that is much more worthy of philosophical debate. The fifth amendment(self-incrimination) debate can conceivably be easily resolved by most people by asking "what happens if we remove it?".
They may interpret "client's best interest" to be limited to the outcome of legal cases.
That isn't fiduciary responsibility. While I'm sure occasions have happened that a cavalier lawyer focused only on the outcome of the case, an attorney is required by law to have a client's short and long term considerations figured into the situation.
If the client thinks he can make his neighborhood safer by turning in a criminal, a lawyer might plausibly claim he wasn't obligated to consider that when calculating his "client's best interest".
The scenario you've offered here is speculative at best. In your initial point, you argue as if the client is the offender. Here now the offender wants to turn someone else in to "make the neighborhood safer" which sounds suspiciously like "think of the children"..
And I doubt you'll find many in the legal profession dispensing medical advice on anything other than enormously evident causes like treating substance abuse or food addiction. If a client is observably on a negative path concern food intake, it is their responsibility to inform them of it and failing action by the client to trigger some kind of treatment if possible.
Why do you avoid questions like "Who says that whatever law was broken is actually a moral and just law? Or are you saying that because a law exists it's moral and just?"