If the government does it it's not murder, because murder is specifically unlawfull killing. I also agree that tax evasion should not be punished by the death penalty, but prison and extremely harsh fines would be a good start imo.
According to German law at the time, presumably, they were not committing murder. It's hard to say because it's entire possible for members of a country's military to follow illegal orders and be breaking the law.
According to international law, they were committing murder.
Murder is defined as illegal homicide. As such, it can only be really be discussed in the context of a legal framework. But there can be many legal frameworks at play in any one place/instance.
I'm saying there is a moral framework that supersedes a legal one, and I reject the "dictionary.com" definition as the conical definition.
From the Oxford dictionary, there is more to the meaning than your shallow lawful vs unlawful demarcation line:
. a. The most heinous kind of criminal homicide; also, an instance of this. In English (also Sc. and U.S.) Law, defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought; often more explicitly wilful murder.
In OE. the word could be applied to any homicide that was strongly reprobated (it had also the senses ‘great wickedness’, ‘deadly injury’, ‘torment’). More strictly, however, it denoted secret murder, which in Germanic antiquity was alone regarded as (in the modern sense) a crime, open homicide being considered a private wrong calling for blood-revenge or compensation. Even under Edward I, Britton explains the AF. murdre only as felonious homicide of which both the perpetrator and the victim are unidentified. The ‘malice aforethought’ which enters into the legal definition of murder, does not (as now interpreted) admit of any summary definition. Until the Homicide Act of 1957, a person might even be guilty of ‘wilful murder’ without intending the death of the victim, as when death resulted from an unlawful act which the doer knew to be likely to cause the death of some one, or from injuries inflicted to facilitate the commission of certain offences. By this act, ‘murder’ was extended to include death resulting from an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. It is essential to ‘murder’ that the perpetrator be of sound mind, and (in England, though not in Scotland) that death should ensue within a year and a day after the act presumed to have caused it. In British law no degrees of guilt are recognized in murder; in the U.S. the law distinguishes ‘murder in the first degree’ (where there are no mitigating circumstances) and ‘murder in the second degree’ (though this distinction does not obtain in all States).
I had the opposite experience (based on the title): I read Goedel, Escher Bach because I thought programming and math were really interesting and it ended up getting me into music.
Can I just say that I genuinely hate the kind of people who complain about the sounds of other people going about their normal life? Chewing is absolutely normal and I don't enjoy hearing it either but I would never actually go up to someone and tell them to stop chewing so loudly. It's just a ridiculous complaint.
I did actually read it but I noticed that a lot of the comments were complaining of the sound and I also have a sibling who is really irritating about this. ^^
I fully understand that some people have misophonia and I can't blame them for complaining.
That's a really difficult question to answer, I think in this case it's ok if there is actually a mental illness or a consequence. I happen to know that my sibling who hates it when anybody chews gum in their vicinity doesn't suffer much from it and doesn't have a poorer quality of life. Them asking me to stop chewing so loudly just makes me feel bad about something I have no control over just as me chewing loudly makes them feel bad because they don't like the sound.
Yes and if you scan the brains of people who can’t stand people who have misophonia and find some pattern, then suddenly it justifies being intolerant of other people.
I feel like a lot of the comments here are strawmanning a bit (or a lot).
Apple and most big manufacturers (in all sectors and industries) who see what they can get away with are purposely abusing copyright law and making deliberate choices in their design and policy that do nothing except hinder the repair of their devices.
The right-to-repair people like Luis Rossmann want legislation to stop these practices.
Some people in the comments are extending that to mean that they want manufacturers to only create modular and bulky devices with yesterdays technology when it seems clear (at least to me) that what they actually want is the ability to legitimately purchase replacement parts from OEMs and legitimate access to the sort of manuals and schematics that are available to their internal refurbishers and technicians.
I don't think it's reasonable to require that manufacturers design their devices to be repairable at the cost of other considerations that are more important to the end user.
I do think it's reasonable to require manufacturers to stop these practices that don't benefit the end user or even harm their experience in order to keep a tight grip on the device that they supposedly purchased and should own completely.
I am facing with this exact problem at work - I have a tool that scans thousands of files and tells me No. Why ? I don't know why. The algorithm it performs is split between 10-20 other subtools (microservices, right?) making following the decision tree almost impossible.
What happens when this kind of tool will calculate your credit score, social score, or the proceeds of your savings ?
That only works if you don't have the chat/emails on your phone and if you can just switch that off. There are enough companies that allow business phones for personal use (can be great to save costs) which means you always have your business phone with you. And on the phone no one sees if you're working before they call you.
To be fair, they can’t trust open-source either. Particularly when so much is happening server-side and on the cloud. Our trust model is fundamentally broken.
