I'm not going to read the report...
But I am going to call it "ridiculous and retarded".
Damages. "They did thing X which cost me $Y. Give money pls." That's how civil lawsuits work.
IANAL but wouldn't I have to prove that "thing X" was wrong in some way before I would be entitled to damages. For a civil suit this usually means demonstrating either a civil infraction or a civil injury.
A civil infraction is defined as "a non criminal violation of a rule, ordinance, or statue". This does not apply because in this hypothetical scenario the polluter didn't break any law in the area where they were operating.
A civil injury is defined as "any physical harm or damage done to person or property by breach of contract, breach of duty, negligence, or by a criminal offense".
There was no contract between me and the polluter so breach of contract does not apply.
The polluter does not have any specific duty that they owe to me so breach of duty does not apply.
The polluter did not break any laws in the jurisdiction in which they operate so criminal offense does not apply.
That just leaves negligence. Negligence is defined as "[failure] to act as an ordinarily prudent person would act under the circumstances". I think you'd have a tough time making that argument in reference to a legitimate business that obeyed all the rules and regulations of the jurisdiction in which they were operating.
In reality, most states already regulate themselves pretty well, and cutting EPA funding for more climate change research...will have no effect
That may be. I'm far from an expert on what exactly the EPA is responsible for. If you'll notice I didn't say anything about what the EPA's funding should or shouldn't be. I was specifically responding to your assertion that it should be up to each state to determine what level of pollution they wanted to allow.
Trump will be re-elected, and you will remain eternally assblasted for all time.
Well, I'm Canadian, so that was probably a given in any event.
Handle those matters by suing the other state or the responsible parties for damages.
If there are no federal laws dictating what type of polluting is and is not allowed (which is what you're advocating for no?) then in what court do I sue them and on what grounds? They've broken no law in their state and they're not technically operating in mine.
How about you let the states figure out how toxic and polluted they want their state to be, instead of dictating it from Washington?
When the state next to mine pumps toxins into the air they don't magically stop at the state line. Isn't the federal government supposed to handle inter-state matters?
Deflation is bad. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader. I will feed you a couple of hints. What if you did nothing with your money and it increased in value? Would you buy anything?
Yes. Otherwise I'd starve to death.
Threatening to punch anyone they see wearing them in the face isn't bullying; is that what you are trying to say?
Your hyperbole is showing.
That's not exactly hyperbole. Consider some of the comments in this thread alone
Can they capture the full wind-up and followthrough of SnapChat glasses being slugged off someone's face?
Does it come with a disclaimer that says.. "When you get punched in the face because of these glasses, and you will get punched in the face because of these glasses, you cannot hold SnapChat legally responsible because you are an asshat."
If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree
They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes. Sufficient measures thus taken, effective privacy is restored.
Some people seem to have no trouble advocating physical violence against people merely for openly carrying a camera (which seems silly because if you want to surreptitiously record people there are plenty of ways to do it that are much less obvious). I hope this is just a case of people "being tough on the Internet", but even so, the ferocity of the response seems totally out of proportion.
But could it be that capitalism is practiced a little more ideally in the U.S.?
That, or maybe American tax dodgers just set up their sketchy shell corporations in Delaware or Nevada.
7F21: Three Men And A Comic Book
Bart: Please Dad!
Bart: Please Dad!
Bart: Please Dad! (And so on...)
Homer: No!!! Now look son we all know that usually when you bug me like this I give in, so I'm not mad at you for trying. It shows you have been paying attention. But we all know I'm not going to give you 100 dollars! Now are you going to stop bugging me?
Homer: Are you?
Homer: Are you?
Homer: Are you? (And so on...)
The problems with taxing muni bonds at the normal progressive tax rates is that wealthy people or institutional investors no longer have any incentive to finance public works...The problem with taxing long-term capital gains at the normal progressive tax rates is that wealthy people or institutional investors no longer have any incentive to invest in ownership stakes in those corporations
Isn't that like saying "The problem with taxing employment income at the normal progressive tax rates is that people will have no incentive to get a job"? Just because you tax one thing at a slightly higher rate than something else (or at a higher rate than has been done historically) doesn't mean it won't still be the better than the alternative options. Would that actually be the case for stocks or municipal bonds? I have no idea. But I'd say it's hardly a foregone conclusion.
You take your "I can take care of myself without leeching off others" and mosey on down the road.
I assume that you paved that road yourself and didn't "leech off others" to do it for you
If there's a 30% chance that someone will fall within the designated "average" range
Why would you assume there's only a 30% chance of that someone would fall within the middle 30 per cent of the range? That would only be true if we assumed for some reason that people would be uniformly distributed throughout the range.
and assuming the dimensions are roughly independent
Given that the dimensions all concern the physical size of the candidates I don't see why anyone would expect them to be independent. Someone that is very tall would, I assume, also be quite likely to have a long sleeve length for example.
That is absolutely required by Agile. Agile demands that if something takes more than one Sprint that you must not do it. Any big architecture problem that takes more than one Sprint cannot be done with Agile.
I am by no means an agile expert or advocate but I'm pretty sure agile doesn't say "No work item that would take longer than one sprint can be worked on", rather I think the idea is that any work item that would take longer than one sprint should be broken down into several smaller and more manageable work items.
Can you explain to me how I requested the hundreds of thousands of bytes of port scan and malware scanning that comes in on my modem unrequested?
I never meant to suggest that you did. I was specifically replying to someone that said that "All the ads and most of the autoplay videos are superfluous to me". That's why I qualified my response with "In the context of a webpage".
So if I may turn the question around, in what sense are port / malware scans a webpage?
"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." -- George Bernard Shaw