Nightingale

If it were 100% computer generated (or even adult actors who have been altered by computers to look younger) it would not be illegal. In Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, the supreme court held that if the image was computer generated, no minor was harmed. The purpose for banning child porn is to protect minors. If there is no minor involved, there is no crime. The justices stated that in the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act, by including computer generated porn, congress was essentially trying to police thought rather than action. In fact, by removing the only legal way to produce and sell child porn, it would encourage porn producers to use real children, because it is much cheaper to film something than to generate it on the computer. If both ways to produce child porn are illegal, there's no reason that the producers won't just go the cheapest route and exploit real kids. If, however, they know they can distribute their porn completely legally if it is computer generated, they probably won't take the risk of using real kids because there's another way that, while more expensive, doesn't involve breaking the law. We're never going to get rid of child porn, just like we're never going to get rid of drugs, alcohol, porn, and other vices by regulating/criminalizing the producers. You can't stop the flow of black market goods by attempting to restrict the source. It doesn't work. It just sends the activities underground where they are much harder to monitor. However, if you can educate (and in some cases, provide psychological treatment for) the consumers, you reduce the demand. And, in the case of child porn, if you permit a completely legal way to produce it that does not harm children, you also reduce the demand for children to star in those films.

Filing the suit gives them access to discovery from the other side. It gives them access to information that might prove gross negligence. They can drop the suit later. When you file a lawsuit, you pretty much have to file against all potentially responsible parties, or the other side can blame it on someone not in the suit. (again, this is not about any dropzone/situation in particular, just the potential legal issues) For example "even though our maintenance was bad, the main cause of the crash was the pilot..." If you haven't named the pilot, then there's nobody there who can speak on the pilot's behalf. In many states, victims or families in personal injury or wrongful death suits MUST sue everyone who may have contributed in any way to the injury or death. Failing to include every potentially responsible party leaves an "empty chair" in the case that gives the other defendants an opportunity to blame everything on the one who isn't named, and since that party isn't named, they (or their estate) don't have the chance to appear and defend themself. In some states, there is a concept called "joint and severable liability" which pretty much means that if a plaintiff cannot collect from one party, they can collect the entire settlement from the rest of the people involved. The court can require one party to pay it all, and that party must then sue the other parties to get those parties to reimburse the first party for what they've paid out to the plaintiff. This was put in as a protection for the plaintiff... for example, if you're a patient in a hospital, and the doctor amputates the wrong leg, so you get a pretty big settlement because life is a lot more difficult without two legs than without one, chances are, while the doctor may be partly (or mostly) responsible, it lets you recover from the hospital, because chances are, the doctor won't have the money to pay the whole settlement. So, what ends up happening is you get your money from the hospital, and then the hospital sues the doctor to get that portion back. In other states, they just have "several liability." Under several liability, the court has to decide the contribution that each defendant made in causing the injury/death, and holds each individual party responsible for that portion of the damages. "Several liability has two disadvantages for plaintiffs--and conversely, two advantages for defendants--relative to joint-and-several liability. First, it makes plaintiffs bear a higher share of the transaction costs. Instead of pursuing only a selected subset of the alleged injurers (often just the single party with the deepest pockets) and shifting the costs of dealing with the remaining parties to that selected group, plaintiffs must sue everyone from whom they hope to collect damages. Second, if some of the injurers are bankrupt, defunct, or otherwise unable to pay their share of the damages, several liability leaves plaintiffs partially uncompensated, whereas joint-and-several liability compensates them more fully, to the extent that other, deeper-pocketed injurers can be tapped for their fellow injurers' shares." -cbo.gov (edited to add that in the above example about the doctor, if the court finds that the doctor was 80% responsible and the hospital 20%, the plaintiff will get their 20% from the hospital, but if the doctor can only pay 30 or 40%, the plaintiff simply can't recover the remaining 40 or 50%. They can't get it from the hospital because the hospital has paid their share, and they can't get it from the doctor because he just doesn't have it. So, the poor guy with no legs now has a lot less money to help make ends meet while he's in rehab and trying to make a living with a much more severe disability than he would've had if not for the conduct of the doctor and hospital) So, failing to name everyone can result in significantly reduced, or even zero recovery for the plaintiff, because it allows the defendants an opportunity to pin everything on the person who isn't there, so they (or their estate) can't speak up in their defense. Kinda like the Family Circus cartoons where Dolly, Billy, and PJ are all pointing at the little ghostly "Not-Me" guy.

I have to pick one? I think there's about twelve.

Yes.

So what? She STILL cannot sign away other people's rights. The parents are perfectly entitled to sue and the court is entitled to render a judgment which may take into account the facts that you have stated. So do you think her parents should get any money for this lawsuit?? IF, and ONLY IF, the dropzone did something grossly negligent that resulted in their child's death. Note: this is not directed at any particular situation/dropzone... just a general commentary on the legal issues: Lawsuits are a way for the public to hold private citizens responsible for their actions. If what happened was an accident or simple negligence, then no, the person suing shouldn't get money, assuming the waiver covered negligence. In the US at least, you cannot waive your ability (or your family's) to sue for gross negligence, no matter what's printed on the waiver. You're signing a legal document, and the document says what the law says that the document says. The law says you cannot waive gross negligence, and therefore, the document does not waive gross negligence, and if you've committed gross negligence, you can still be sued for it no matter what's on the waiver. There's a good reason for this. If what happened was an error, a mistake, or negligence, then the parents should lose the lawsuit and have to pay the dropzone's court costs, assuming that was also in the waiver. If what happened was the result of gross negligence (such as skipping routine maintenance on the plane for a very long time, knowing that it probably would result in problems), then yes, the parents should win the suit, if only to keep the dropzone from doing something stupid again and putting more lives at risk. If individuals are allowed to operate in a shoddy and grossly negligent manner, taking no regard for the life and safety of the people on their aircraft, and knowing they cannot be held accountable merely by having those people sign a waiver, more people are going to get hurt because not everybody is as careful and concerned about their jumpers as most DZOs.

Actually, it doesn't. Entrapment requires that a normally LAW ABIDING person be badgered, persuaded, tricked, pressured, etc... into commiting an illegal act that they WOULD NOT ORDINARILY DO. If someone simply puts out there that they're selling this stuff, and somebody else says they'll buy it, that isn't entrapment. If someone contacts another person repeatedly, won't stop, pressures them, ensures them that they won't be caught, etc...and the person says "fine, if I buy it, will you go away?" That's entrapment. If the conduct of the government representative somehow persuades the person to do something that they would not do if not for the government's pressuring, badgering, etc, then it's entrapment. If they would've just bought the tape from someone else and it was a standard low/no pressure transaction, no entrapment. It all depends on the conduct of the officers in question.

And what about those people who want to be here but don't medically qualify for the military? I'm a citizen and I tried to serve. They wouldn't let me. I don't have a problem with making the military A path to citizenship. I just don't think it should be the ONLY path.

Simple. Get rid of the minimum wage. It accomplishes nothing but increasing inflation. Let the employers pay what the job is worth, not what the state says it is worth, and remove the incentive to hire illegal immigrants by placing very heavy fines on anyone who does. By doing both of those, you remove the incentive for business owners to hire illegal immigrants, because they can hire someone legally for the same rate and would face fines so heavy that it would put them out of business if they did otherwise, and you remove the incentive for illegal immigration, because those jobs will no longer be as readily available. A fair wage is what the job is worth to the person paying the wage, and what is negotiated with the payer of the wage by the wage earner. Unfair wages are wages that are mandatated by the state and drive prices up and increase inflation. It's not that what's paid to illegal immigrants is below market, it's that what's paid to minimum wage workers is generally far above market. Do you WANT to pay $20 a basket for strawberries? I don't.

Carry the rig on. Just get there early so you have room in overhead compartments, and carry your cypres card with you if you have a cypres. My boyfriend had no trouble getting his rig on and off the plane on our way up to Prairie. On the way back, he had to check it because there was no room in overhead, and they misplaced it for about twelve hours because it didn't make it on the plane. TSA is a joke. I've accidentally sent a pocketknife through their x-ray machines, and they didn't even notice. I take all my toiletries in my carry on, and nobody's stopped me once for carrying shampoo and any other liquid I've got in there. Airport security is nothing more than security theater... it's a show to make people feel safer without actually doing anything at all except causing long lines and inconvenience.

Here it is! on DVD: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006FO9G0/sr=8-1/qid=1155092074/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4185454-8292815?ie=UTF8

Rikki-Tikki-Tavi You can find it here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/usr/mongoose/www/rtt.html and buy the book (illustrated) here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0824965973/sr=8-3/qid=1155092074/ref=pd_bbs_3/002-4185454-8292815?ie=UTF8

Oh yes! Can't believe I forgot him! "where the sidewalk ends" was one of my favorite books as a kid. Can't forget "the owl and the pussycat" or "Where the Wild Things Are" either.

Books. Lots of Books. Goodnight Moon Richard Scarry Dr Seuss Pat the Bunny My brother and I hardly ever watched television when we were little; we didn't want to. My mom always had something we could do, like books, tinkertoys, lincoln logs, legos, etc...stuff you can use your imagination with.

All too true....BUT...... I have not seen Jerry Falwells or Pat Robertsons followers getting on buses in Muslim neighborhoods and blowing up the busses.... And I have yet to see a Hasidic Jew enter a cafe in some of the NJ Burbs where many Middle Easteners have immegrated to and leveled the place with a bomb. I haven't heard of christians blowing up busses...but there have been quite a few reports of blowing up doctor's offices.

Looking at this, I'm reminded of a Jeff Foxworthy quote: "And you know, the thing is, Southerners are as smart as anybody in this country. Our only problem is we just can't keep the most ignorant among us off the television. That's the truth. I mean, every time we have a disaster, they never film a doctor or a lawyer. They always get that woman in the mu-mu and the sponge rollers. 'It was pandelerium. I thought we'd be killed or even worse. I looked out the window to see the Jenkins' house go right over our roof. All I could think was Caroline still has my caserole dish.'" What you see on television is usually a slice of the most sensational stuff out there, and isn't representative of the population as a whole. There are extreme muslims. There are extreme christians. There are extreme jews. If there's a religion, there are people who take it to the extreme. What these people have in common is that they are extremist. I don't believe that religion creates extremists, but I believe that often, extremists find an outlet in religion, because religion offers strict guidelines that the extremist can enforce, and often, they pick and choose which ones. Religion isn't the problem. The people who follow extremists and fanatics are the problem.

Yes. I used to be a lifeguard.

I think people who are arrogant to begin with start skydiving because they want something else to brag about (skygods). Arrogance isn't usually a trait acquired as an adult, from what I've seen. I've seen people grow more confident because of skydiving, but not more arrogant.

If you're okay with not using one... I'll never jump without one for the same reason I won't ride in a car without my seatbelt. There could be an accident. It could be my fault, it could be someone else's fault. I'd rather have the extra measure of safety. Plus, I promised my dad. I know someone who is alive today because of an AAD. I also know someone who, if they'd used their AAD properly, would be alive today.

At Perris, I usually see seatbelts on everybody, and the occasional person holding their helmet, who sometimes gets a friendly nudge and then clips it through their seatbelt or chest strap if they don't want to wear it.

You won't find "another brand name of the same drug." You'll find a brand name (Zantac) and a generic (Ranitidine). If there's a generic available, pharmacies will usually give that to you unless you ask for the brand name. If you're thinking of different drugs that are used to treat the same condition, for example: Zantac Prevacid Prilosec Nexium Aciphex all used to treat acid reflux, but some work better for certain people than others do, and often, it's just trial and error to find one that works. I don't know if most doctors aren't like this, but mine has always been very open with me about what is being prescribed and why, or why she isn't giving a prescription (virus, etc). First, my doctor gave me prilosec, because that's what she had samples of. Didn't work well, so we tried samples of nexium (different, a bit stronger). Then we tried Prevacid, because that's what my insurance would cover. Didn't work well and made me feel a bit sick. Aciphex was a pretty new drug and, according to research, seemed to work for people that the other drugs didn't. My insurance didn't want to cover it, so it was our last resort. It did seem to work, so we stuck with that one. I've only ever gotten four kinds of antibiotics. Amoxicillin (generic), Cipro, Eurythromycin (generic), Azithromycin. My doc first gave me azithromycin because it was convenient (only 5 pills in 4 days) and she knows I have a problem remembering to take antibiotics four times a day. The azithromycin made me sick, so we went back to amoxicillin. Recently, Cipro has come out with a one-pill antibiotic which doesn't make me sick. I'm willing to pay extra for it at the pharmacy because I take it once and I'm done with it (but usually I don't even have to go to the pharmacy, because she'll just give me a free sample in the office). My doctor knows I like the convenience and that Cipro is about the only antibiotic that doesn't make me feel nauseous.

1. pocketknife 2. small first aid kit 3. layer-able clothing 4. flashlight 5. rain poncho 6. water 7. compass and map/field guide (if available) 8. waterproof matches 9. sunglasses and sunscreen 10.food All this stuff fits in my camelback easily. It's silly not to bring stuff that you will need in case you get turned around and lose your way. It's very easy to get lost if you're unfamiliar with the trail (trees look pretty much the same no matter which way you turn) or venture off the trail in search of a bush. I was hiking in Yellowstone with my brother about ten years ago, and we were chatting and not really paying attention to which forks in the trail we were taking, since we didn't have a particular destination in mind. Figuring we were just going for a walk, we didn't bring the trail guide or compass. After a few minutes of panic, we ended up following our noses back to the geyser basin, but most hiking trails don't have convenient sulfur-spewing landmarks. We were stupid, we got lost, and we got lucky. I'm not going to repeat that mistake.

Lunch doesn't concern me at all. However a thousand dollar lunch because the doctor has prescribed Prozac more than 500 times this month does concern me. And if it concerns you that maybe your doctor prescribed prozac more often than required by his patients, then you're worried about your doctor's ethics. If 500 people needed prozac and the drug company wants to buy him lunch, so what? It doesn't make a difference, and an ethical doctor would do what's right for their patients, whether or not it comes with a free lunch. If a physican can be bribed by a drug company into doing something that is not in the best interest of his patients, he should lose his license. Business lunches paid for by the party who wants a chance to talk to someone about their product aren't uncommon, and neither is giving away samples as a way to introduce potential customers to the product.

What if the lunch is in the Rainbow Room and your doctor doesn't even live in NY? There are many different lunches....from your local branded restaurant, to high end culinary experiences worth hunderds if not thousands.... Again, if a pharmaceutical company buying your doctor lunch concerns you, you need to find a new doctor. If the doctor's care is influenced by who buys them what, the problem lies with the doctor, not the purchaser.

I'm really glad that my doctor gets drug samples. She gives them to her patients (often an entire prescription's worth!) when she knows we can't afford the prescription, if the insurance won't approve it, or if she knows our lives are insanely busy, just to make things easier on us. Antibiotics and my stomach don't get along well, so when she wants me to take something different (like those new 1 day or 5 day doses), she'll give me one to try before I pick up the prescription, so if it upsets my stomach, I can just call her and have her change the prescription rather than paying for one that I can't use and then having to pay for another one that I can. I don't care if a drug rep might be buying her lunch to get her to listen to him talk about his drug. I know her well enough that I'm not the slightest bit worried that a free lunch would influence the care she gave her patients. She'll give the patient the best prescription for that patient. If it happens to be something she's got samples of, she'll give the patient the samples (actually taking money away from the drug companies, because that person isn't buying a prescription). If a pharmaceutical company buying your doctor lunch concerns you, you need to find a new doctor.

Maybe not so clear. Murder is defined in the legal dictionary (and most states use the same or very similar definition) as the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime), and with no legal excuse or authority. The problems you run into in trying to claim murder are 1. the person must be sane. 2. the person must be capable of forming intent 3. the person must have malice aforethought It's #1 and #3 that are the hinges in the Yates case. The jury found that Andrea Yates was not sane. A person who is legally considered insane cannot form the required intent and malice aforethought to commit murder. So, can an insane person kill? Absolutely. Can they murder? maybe not.