PalmOne was bought up by HP who stopped using PalmOS and created webOS for use in tablets and phones, and later HP sold it to LG who used it as a TV OS. You will remember webOS as the phone OS that mimicked an Apple iPod so it could work with iTunes.
The Palm Pre was a smartphone released in 2009 that ran WebOS. Palm was acquired by HP in 2010. WebOS predates the HP acquisition.
So by your logic, rather than
I'm not sure what logic you're referring to. My statement which you quote is a statement of fact, not a logical argument. Any conclusions drawn are your own. That being said, I don't believe draconian punishments intended to make an example of a violator are the most effective deterrent in the toolbox of justice, but I'm sure there's objective data on this subject that's more valuable than my subjective opinion.
Please, tell me more about how laws should punish all of the thousands of other churches and synagogues and mosques that didn't flagrantly put people's lives in danger.
The religious organizations that didn't put people's lives in danger are the ones which do not hold large gatherings and are therefore unaffected by the prohibition of large religious gatherings, no?
Riot/protesting is okay, attending church is not. I live in L.A. - I've witnessed the protesting up close. To condone protesting yet shut down churches is genuinely unfair, and specifically prevented within the Constitution.
You bring up a valid point. I would prefer for religious gatherings to be just as "okay", to use your own word, as protest gatherings.
Complete with deployment of riot police, liberal use of tear gas and rubber bullets, etc.
People don't live their lives based on a 1 in a million, let alone lower chances than that.
People don't, but governments do. They operate lotteries, budget for them, employ people to run them, etc.
In a discussion about epidemiology, which is concerned with the population-level impacts, individual opinions about the likelihood of self-reinfection are less meaningful. Regardless of what people "can count on", when it comes to matters of public policy, evidence of reinfection during a time period of significant mitigation (social distancing, masks, lockdown, etc.) raises even more concerns about proposed policies that oppose mitigation in favor of some hoped-for herd immunity.
This from a virus that bears a survival rate of 99.99% if you are a healthy individual under 50 years old
I keep seeing this rhetorical device, an attempt to frame the debate as if society consisted primarily of healthy individuals under 50, or as though everyone else lived in isolation from them.
Indeed, the fact that healthy individuals under 50 virtually always survive (though sometimes with permanently impaired lung function) has no bearing on the fact that they're still contagious when infected, and still pose a significant threat to the lives of people who are not healthy individuals under 50 which, incidentally, constitutes a majority of the US population.
Why, when somebody creates something and it becomes valuable, do people resent them for retaining some of the value of the thing they created? If he's like all of these other billionaires, he'll never spend more than the tiniest fraction of it on himself. Most of them end up giving nearly all of it to charities that do a tremendous amount of good - largely doing things the government used to do and saving us tax dollars though I'd rather the government spent my tax dollars on R&D.
If you're asking why people resent it when the wealthiest members of society (and not a democratically elected government) end up dictating how that society prioritizes social spending, it's probably because they were indoctrinated since childhood with the belief that plutocracy is inherently bad.
Clearly you were spared this indoctrination. Congratulations!
"It is better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try, but the result's the same." - Mike Dennison
