I think it's covered under that "right to life" section of the Constitution. Deliberately poisoning people through their water supply seems like a sure-fire way to deny the right to life of your citizens.
It hasn't counted when it's "accidental" - eg: pretty much all of the US uranium leach well mining resulted in tainted water in a "yeah we know, but don't care" process.
Also radioactive tailings dam collapses and hard rock mining consequences:
On Poisoned Ground
The largest accidental release of radioactivity in the United States did not occur in 1979 at Three-Mile Island. That very same year a collapsing dam released a flood of radioactive debris into the Navajo Nation.
'We didn't know we were poisoning ourselves': the deadly legacy of the US uranium boom
Tsosie was one of thousands of Navajos who took jobs in the mines, starting in the 1940s. They worked without masks or ventilation to disperse the lethal radon gas, and they were never told the rocks they were handling – leetso in the Diné language, or yellow dirt – were deadly.
As the other poster mentions, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not from the Constitution but from the Declaration of Independence. As much as it might be part of American civic lore, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding, it is a product from two whole legal regimes before the USA's current one was founded.
The current court has made it clear "civic lore" is fundamental to interpreting the Constitution, though curiously this seems to only apply to certain causes.
I believe it is important for us to consider where rights derive from. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are designed to protect rights that humans already have ("endowed by their Creator") and prevent the government from taking them away, or infringing on them. The law can grant ordinary civil rights, above and beyond intrinsic human rights, but if the Constitution isn't protecting the latter, then there is a problem.
Tradesinsight? Plural? Because tradesinsight is a DNS not found, but tradeinsight.info will notify me when Nancy pelosi and other Congress members trade.
I'd suggest no one should investigate. So you lost your Bitcoin from some massive fraud? Too bad. That's the cost of playing that game. You should not get a free pass when you ask your government for assistance, and you should not have your government investing time and money looking into massive fraud concerning Internet Fun Bucks. You assume all risk when using this kind of money.
But you could tax someone for getting free gifts "in kind", so if you donated GPU time to do protein folding for GlaxoSmithKlein and they rewarded you with some internet points, they might be taxable on the difference.
Video games have all kinds of gold etc. that you can use to buy items. People will pay you real money to get your video game points if the video game is popular. So now is everybody who plays a popular video game committing tax fraud unless they report their gameplay to the IRS, because they earn points which have monetary value? That's not going to go over well.
They seem to want to go with something like it's not taxable unless you cash out. But that's a whole different kind of mess. If you trade somebody your Roblox points for their Fortnite points, is that cashing out, or are you both just trading your non-taxable thing for a different non-taxable thing? Is there any reason for this to be different than trading your sword for a crossbow within a single game? What about games that share worlds? What about games that have cryptocurrency in them?
The whole thing is a mess because "anything of value" is too broad to be practical, but narrow it an inch and you have a loophole.
I believe that the government should tax transactions involving money. If you cash out your bitcoin, then that's income, and should be taxed. I don't think unrealized gains of bitcoin should be taxed because bitcoin isn't money
> In particular, anything that needs regular updates is not "firm" in any sense.
It's really not about the updates that makes something "firm". Hardware is hard because it's a real physical thing. Software is soft because it's a non-physical thing, a set of instructions. Firmware is firm because it's less physical than hardware, and is more physical than a set of instructions. Firmware is software, in that it's a set of instructions, but additionally it needs to be loaded or flashed or programmed into the hardware, and stored either on-chip or in some ROM or NVRAM nearby, differentiating firmware storage from software storage on disk, tape, or some other peripheral storage. At the time, this made pretty clear sense, but over time, things were made murky by multifacted uses of NVRAM and peripheral storage.
So, "software built into hardware" is a pretty good definition. When you say something isn't firmware, it's software, that seems mistaken. All firmware is software, not all software is firmware. The size doesn't matter. Whether it's an application or a device driver doesn't matter. What defines the "firm" part of firmware is whether it's "built into the hardware". That's it.
So, yeah, you're having a definition problem. If you keep whatever definition that you currently have, then you're gonna have a bad time. If you try to "draw a firm line somewhere between the code in a tiny microcontroller running a battery charger and the operating system running on a general-purpose application processor", with this new definition, the question becomes "where is this code stored?". It doesn't matter how large it is, whether it's 100 lines of code in your battery charger or 1,000,000 LOC for your OS. If it's in on-board storage, it's firmware. If it's in peripheral storage, it's software.
How would you classify the operating system on a Macbook? The entire SSD is just a bunch of flash chips soldered to the motherboard - just like the BIOS flash chip.
I think we shouldn't forget the real stars of that movie, Maury Chaykin and Eddie Deezen, both playing epic nerds. Jim and Alvin were my heroes. Not so much now.
reply