10749 pts ยท February 3, 2013
Publishing is about ticking boxes, unfortunately. But, just because your work doesn't align with *their* expectations doesn't mean it's bad or not worthwhile. Part of publishing is about deciding how much you want to conform to commercial expectations. Maybe adding more women-coded content doesn't change your piece that much, so it's fine to acquiesce to their request. But, maybe it does change your piece too much. Will they accept it without that change if you make other changes?
Where is this drone footage from? Please do not encourage people to fly drones to capture this footage. One of the aircraft dumping water to stop the spread of the fires was already damaged due to a drone flying illegally in its path. There are so many drones causing a hazard for these firefighters who are already putting their lives at risk to fight these fires. Cite your sources so we can ensure stupid people don't put more firefighters at risk with their drones.
Yeah, that's the beauty of a human doing the job. Something else went wrong. Not a failure, just a mistake, and the humans adapted to make the most of the moment. Some jobs need this level of human involvement and it's great when companies see the value in the increased cost.
That's not a good enough reason, unfortunately. Unions protect jobs, in part, for reasons like that. They should; that is why they exist. But a company has no reason to think the same way. Justifying Wally's employment with this injection of emotion is unnecessary. There is a legitimate fear that technology will fail, and in an environment where timing is everything, that is unacceptable. A human holding cards is not prone to unexplained failure and can adapt should something else go wrong.
Another issue (aside from the other issues people have mentioned here) is that even encased in epoxy or a vacuum environment between glass, something that is already fragile and degrading will continue to degrade further. Have you ever seen food encased in epoxy? The food that does not rot has been specially prepared to remove moisture and other things to preserve it. If you are doing that to artwork anyway, the additional (and unreversible) step to encase it in epoxy is no longer necessary.
"A judge may not enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal in United States criminal cases. Such an action would violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to be placed in double jeopardy and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. If the judge grants a motion to set aside judgment after the jury convicts, however, the action may be reversed on appeal by the prosecution." from Wikipedia.
The prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict, regardless of jury nullification, because of double jeopardy. With a not guilty verdict, there will be no retrial. You are correct that if one person decides not to participate in jury nullification this would result in a hung jury and would be grounds for retrial, but that is not what we are discussing.
Jury nullification is: "when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law." It does not mean that the trial is put on hold, far from it. A not guilty verdict is handed down, and the defendant cannot be retried. Please look up these terms and stop spreading misinformation.
That's why it's called jury nullification and not simply being found not guilty. The jury would be voting based on their beliefs rather than voting based on the law. It's deliberate action taken by the jury when the law or the circumstances of the conviction are found to be objectionable (rather than considering the crime objectionable).
Jury nullification is a not guilty verdict. It's just one that the jury comes to (usually) despite overwhelming evidence supporting a guilty verdict. A hung jury is just one that can't make a decision, which allows him to be retried. A not guilty verdict prevents a second trial.
It sounds like they are trying to rationalize a new reality they don't fully understand. I would take them at their word that they accept you and continue to talk to them about how you feel, how they feel, and how their actions make you feel. If you are open about these things it will become apparently really quickly if they are just saying things to minimize your feelings or if they are genuinely struggling with getting to know the "new" you.
I can only hope that people stop being apathetic about how classist our society is. One CEO shouldn't be able to enact policy that results in the deaths of thousands of people who can't afford the healthcare that really should have been a basic human right in the first place.
Oh sure. But that doesn't mean a hung jury is a better alternative in this case. It might be a long shot, but one does not preclude the other. If anything, you'll get a hung jury anyway if even a few people are attempting to nullify. But the point isn't necessarily to prevent him from being found guilty. It's about sending a message about the wider context of his actions.
Interestingly, many years ago I was selected as a potential juror for a case directly involving police, and they basically asked your last question. They asked something like "If testimony from a cop is presented, would you be more or less inclined to believe them regardless of the content of their testimony." Both sides and the judge spent maybe 20 minutes questioning me based on my lack of faith in law enforcement (based on personal experience) and I was ultimately dismissed.
I don't disagree with what you said, but I don't understand how that equates to a hung jury being superior to jury nullification in this case. Regardless of the likelihood, a not guilty verdict in the face of unambiguous evidence would be much more powerful than a jury that can't agree.
Jury nullification would be better.
I'm curious about the circumstances that would make it defensible not to vote. This is a right the US takes away from criminals and disallows from various other groups who live within its borders. Not that far back in our history only a small segment of the population could vote. Voting is a powerful tool. Even if our choices are limited in a specific election, voting enables change over time. Not voting removes any possibility of affecting that change.
You can dislike the options yet pick one that 1) does the least harm; 2) has some values/policies that align with yours; 3) share values/policies with people you care about; 4) is endorsed by people you care about; 5) is connected with a political party that has values/policies that align with yours or people you care about; 6) is a third party because none of these options appeal to you. There are so many ways to engage with voting, and all of them are legitimate. Not voting is cowardly.
The alternatives are not adding padding to the shoe, they are made of different materials that are engineered to be customized to the dancer's foot (and therefore be more comfortable) and be soft and rigid in the necessary areas to increase support without sacrificing flexibility or tactility. You can find interviews with professionals about these inventions where they call these them "cheater" shoes.
I agree that sacrifice for the aesthetic is part of the culture, but material science is really insane now. Since whatever the shoe is made of has to mostly deal with compression, with some flexibility, there are many extremely thin materials that could work without altering the silhouette. It's not like the paper and fabric the current toe boxes are made from are particularly thin (in fact, to be rigid enough, many layers have to be built up).
Not necessarily. If you can engineer a shoe to transfer weight from the toe to the heel through better arch and ankle support, the toe box could still be small (because it's not relying on cushioning the toes to increase comfort). But, you'd have to change ballet culture to do it.
There are some inventions that were designed to make the experience less harmful to a dancer's foot (and less wasteful, as most shoes can only be worn a handful of times), but ballet is so traditional many dancers believe these shoes are "cheating" and will not wear them.
There is a lot of social capital to be gained by announcing a pregnancy. Unfortunately, women are valued because they can become pregnant... Support them, shop with them, and share in the fun moments with them as much as you want, but don't measure your value through your choice not to become pregnant. Spend your money on a fancy vacation in a year, and I'm sure the emotional situation will be reversed.
No. I have gone through border control and not produced any documentation at all. I believe the only question I was asked was my name, and after I answered they said welcome home. I'm sure they are working from a small database of individuals known to be on arriving flights, so a facial recognition search through 2,000 or so people shouldn't take very long at all.
I'm not generally one to shy away from talking about the cost of something (or pay, for that matter), but... he shouldn't have to justify anything in his personal life to a coworker. That person is too nosy and judgemental!
It's a shame you've got such shitty people in your life who think it's alright to judge you because of a ring. God forbid people buy things that make them happy.
All that stuff is still there if you want to find it.
Publishing is about ticking boxes, unfortunately. But, just because your work doesn't align with *their* expectations doesn't mean it's bad or not worthwhile. Part of publishing is about deciding how much you want to conform to commercial expectations. Maybe adding more women-coded content doesn't change your piece that much, so it's fine to acquiesce to their request. But, maybe it does change your piece too much. Will they accept it without that change if you make other changes?
Where is this drone footage from? Please do not encourage people to fly drones to capture this footage. One of the aircraft dumping water to stop the spread of the fires was already damaged due to a drone flying illegally in its path. There are so many drones causing a hazard for these firefighters who are already putting their lives at risk to fight these fires. Cite your sources so we can ensure stupid people don't put more firefighters at risk with their drones.
Yeah, that's the beauty of a human doing the job. Something else went wrong. Not a failure, just a mistake, and the humans adapted to make the most of the moment. Some jobs need this level of human involvement and it's great when companies see the value in the increased cost.
That's not a good enough reason, unfortunately. Unions protect jobs, in part, for reasons like that. They should; that is why they exist. But a company has no reason to think the same way. Justifying Wally's employment with this injection of emotion is unnecessary. There is a legitimate fear that technology will fail, and in an environment where timing is everything, that is unacceptable. A human holding cards is not prone to unexplained failure and can adapt should something else go wrong.
Another issue (aside from the other issues people have mentioned here) is that even encased in epoxy or a vacuum environment between glass, something that is already fragile and degrading will continue to degrade further. Have you ever seen food encased in epoxy? The food that does not rot has been specially prepared to remove moisture and other things to preserve it. If you are doing that to artwork anyway, the additional (and unreversible) step to encase it in epoxy is no longer necessary.
"A judge may not enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal in United States criminal cases. Such an action would violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to be placed in double jeopardy and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. If the judge grants a motion to set aside judgment after the jury convicts, however, the action may be reversed on appeal by the prosecution." from Wikipedia.
The prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict, regardless of jury nullification, because of double jeopardy. With a not guilty verdict, there will be no retrial. You are correct that if one person decides not to participate in jury nullification this would result in a hung jury and would be grounds for retrial, but that is not what we are discussing.
Jury nullification is: "when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law." It does not mean that the trial is put on hold, far from it. A not guilty verdict is handed down, and the defendant cannot be retried. Please look up these terms and stop spreading misinformation.
That's why it's called jury nullification and not simply being found not guilty. The jury would be voting based on their beliefs rather than voting based on the law. It's deliberate action taken by the jury when the law or the circumstances of the conviction are found to be objectionable (rather than considering the crime objectionable).
Jury nullification is a not guilty verdict. It's just one that the jury comes to (usually) despite overwhelming evidence supporting a guilty verdict. A hung jury is just one that can't make a decision, which allows him to be retried. A not guilty verdict prevents a second trial.
It sounds like they are trying to rationalize a new reality they don't fully understand. I would take them at their word that they accept you and continue to talk to them about how you feel, how they feel, and how their actions make you feel. If you are open about these things it will become apparently really quickly if they are just saying things to minimize your feelings or if they are genuinely struggling with getting to know the "new" you.
I can only hope that people stop being apathetic about how classist our society is. One CEO shouldn't be able to enact policy that results in the deaths of thousands of people who can't afford the healthcare that really should have been a basic human right in the first place.
Oh sure. But that doesn't mean a hung jury is a better alternative in this case. It might be a long shot, but one does not preclude the other. If anything, you'll get a hung jury anyway if even a few people are attempting to nullify. But the point isn't necessarily to prevent him from being found guilty. It's about sending a message about the wider context of his actions.
Interestingly, many years ago I was selected as a potential juror for a case directly involving police, and they basically asked your last question. They asked something like "If testimony from a cop is presented, would you be more or less inclined to believe them regardless of the content of their testimony." Both sides and the judge spent maybe 20 minutes questioning me based on my lack of faith in law enforcement (based on personal experience) and I was ultimately dismissed.
I don't disagree with what you said, but I don't understand how that equates to a hung jury being superior to jury nullification in this case. Regardless of the likelihood, a not guilty verdict in the face of unambiguous evidence would be much more powerful than a jury that can't agree.
Jury nullification would be better.
I'm curious about the circumstances that would make it defensible not to vote. This is a right the US takes away from criminals and disallows from various other groups who live within its borders. Not that far back in our history only a small segment of the population could vote. Voting is a powerful tool. Even if our choices are limited in a specific election, voting enables change over time. Not voting removes any possibility of affecting that change.
You can dislike the options yet pick one that 1) does the least harm; 2) has some values/policies that align with yours; 3) share values/policies with people you care about; 4) is endorsed by people you care about; 5) is connected with a political party that has values/policies that align with yours or people you care about; 6) is a third party because none of these options appeal to you. There are so many ways to engage with voting, and all of them are legitimate. Not voting is cowardly.
The alternatives are not adding padding to the shoe, they are made of different materials that are engineered to be customized to the dancer's foot (and therefore be more comfortable) and be soft and rigid in the necessary areas to increase support without sacrificing flexibility or tactility. You can find interviews with professionals about these inventions where they call these them "cheater" shoes.
I agree that sacrifice for the aesthetic is part of the culture, but material science is really insane now. Since whatever the shoe is made of has to mostly deal with compression, with some flexibility, there are many extremely thin materials that could work without altering the silhouette. It's not like the paper and fabric the current toe boxes are made from are particularly thin (in fact, to be rigid enough, many layers have to be built up).
Not necessarily. If you can engineer a shoe to transfer weight from the toe to the heel through better arch and ankle support, the toe box could still be small (because it's not relying on cushioning the toes to increase comfort). But, you'd have to change ballet culture to do it.
There are some inventions that were designed to make the experience less harmful to a dancer's foot (and less wasteful, as most shoes can only be worn a handful of times), but ballet is so traditional many dancers believe these shoes are "cheating" and will not wear them.
There is a lot of social capital to be gained by announcing a pregnancy. Unfortunately, women are valued because they can become pregnant... Support them, shop with them, and share in the fun moments with them as much as you want, but don't measure your value through your choice not to become pregnant. Spend your money on a fancy vacation in a year, and I'm sure the emotional situation will be reversed.
No. I have gone through border control and not produced any documentation at all. I believe the only question I was asked was my name, and after I answered they said welcome home. I'm sure they are working from a small database of individuals known to be on arriving flights, so a facial recognition search through 2,000 or so people shouldn't take very long at all.
I'm not generally one to shy away from talking about the cost of something (or pay, for that matter), but... he shouldn't have to justify anything in his personal life to a coworker. That person is too nosy and judgemental!
It's a shame you've got such shitty people in your life who think it's alright to judge you because of a ring. God forbid people buy things that make them happy.
All that stuff is still there if you want to find it.