I think you're missing the big picture. The Constitution is in some ways an ambiguous document and each of the justices has a different idea of how it should be interpreted. This is an "ideology," but it's one that you need to have if you're a judge, otherwise you can't make any sort of ruling.
Being the swing vote is fun, gives you a lot more influence than anyone except the Chief Justice. Plus you can push the judges whose side you decide on to let you write the opinion.
I've never understood why console manufacturers don't try to make their consoles last longer. They're hugely expensive to make, hugely expensive for the consumer to buy, and have frequently made the manufacturer a net loss on sales.
Competition. If they don't make a new console, someone else will.
Nintendo learned it the hard way when the Genesis started trouncing the NES, and they still hate the fact that they have to keep developing new systems, and have a tendency to promise their new consoles a long time before they're actually finished in order to keep their fans from buying the competitor's new system. And they really liked the Gameboy development cycle. In fact, I remember a few cycles ago when they (and I think this was for the gamecube but not sure) actually had an advertising campaign complaining about the constant console development, and trying to convince gamers that their next console would be a long-term one that would focus on gameplay and not be dependent on cutting-edge graphics. Weirdest gaming advertising campaign I've ever seen.
I propose that a natural disaster occurring within the borders of a country (earthquake, drought, volcano) counts as an internal force that could change the fate of a nation without any blame falling on that nation's people.
I know it seems like an unlikely mix, but I've actually pondered adding a law diploma to my IT one.
Are you serious? Go visit jdunderground.com if you don't believe me, but there is a huge glut of lawyers, and finding a legal job is very, very difficult in this economy.
But, when lawyers can't be tech savvy, why can't they hire tech people to explain to them where the (technical) holes in suits lie?
Lawyers often do hire tech people to advise them on cases, but a lot of the times the cases hinge on things other than technical issues.
Theists are always using the wrong arguments when the try to disprove atheists. They're all about how well bananas fit in the hand and whatnot. That kind of stuff is easily explained by evolution.
You're assuming all theists don't believe in evolution, and all atheists do.
There's nothing wrong with a layman giving his opinion of legal rulings. I just don't know why slashdot gives him a forum for it, why doesn't Haselton just go to law school if he's that interested?
Are you serious? Half of the reason why we have such high medical costs are the over-the-top malpractice provisions we have in our laws.
Have you even LOOKED at medical malpractice laws lately? I know in my state doctors are heavily protected. The statute of limitations is short and there are caps on both damages and attorneys' fees, and to even begin the action the plaintiff has to get an affidavit from a medical expert that negligence probably occurred.
And you don't win a malpractice case against a doctor by proving the doctor gave the wrong treatment, but rather that the doctor failed to follow his or her standard of care, which is a lot harder.
The movie industry (and apparently the contributor) apparently assume that anyone who downloads a movie illegally would have been willing to pay $10 to see it legally, if downloading it were not an option.
And most slashdotters assume anyone who downloads a movie illegally wouldn't have paid for the ticket if it had not been available, so no loss.
Eh, judges have some discretion as to whether to admit illegally obtained evidence. And OJ might have lost the civil suit simply because civil suits have a lower burden of proof you have to show to win (preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.)
Yes. If the judge says 'this is the rule we're going to play by' then that's the rule.
That's what Motions to Reconsider are for! And Motions to Reconsider Motions to Reconsider! And Motions to Reconsider Motions to Reconsider Motions to Reconsider for. THEN you give up.
Okay, maybe I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, but if Americans aren't spending money on mp3s and downloaded movies, aren't they instead spending that money elsewhere? We have one of the lowest savings rates in the world, so it's not like the money is disappearing into our savings accounts.
The thing is, America still produces a lot of entertainment, so the money paid for it tends to stick around in America. Just about everything else you can buy is being sold to you by another country.
As others have pointed out, poker is not a game which is skewed in the house's favor. The house takes a percentage of every pot, called the rake. In poker players play against one another, and while there is a chance element, chance does not favor anyone in the long run.
In traditional poker, yes. Where none of the players see each other, one could be playing for the house; wouldn't they rather make the entire pot rather than a small percentage of it?
Or, you could just rely on the honesty of a fly-by-night, Cayman Islands-based internet company.
Definitely, what's the worst thing that happens? They run their franchises into the ground, ruin the good name of their company, and make horrible movies? That's going to cause you personal WORRY? You are waaaay too emotionally invested in this.
That's going to be true with just about any subject, though. What makes a hard science so much more special than a different subject? An associate's degree in astrophysics tells me someone has a basic grounding in the subject, and would be able to assist in basic research--say as a technician at an observatory. Nobody thinks someone with an AA in astrophysics is an astrophysicist.
How about considering that by sharing a song with my friend (btw you're not even allowed to share a headphone since you didn't pay for public broadcasting) I may have gotten the band another fan. Or exposed them to a larger audience, which in turn breeds hte selling of concert tickets and merchandise sales.
So forced marketing against their will. Maybe if they produced the song, they should be allowed to decide their marketing strategy?
Now, if you put us both away in prison for a few years... guess how many concerts we're going to and how much merchandise we're buying that time?
Name a single person who has been thrown in jail for sharing a song. And I don't mean sharing millions of song via a black market pirating operation for profit, I mean sharing a song with their friend for free.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're missing the big picture. The Constitution is in some ways an ambiguous document and each of the justices has a different idea of how it should be interpreted. This is an "ideology," but it's one that you need to have if you're a judge, otherwise you can't make any sort of ruling.
Being the swing vote is fun, gives you a lot more influence than anyone except the Chief Justice. Plus you can push the judges whose side you decide on to let you write the opinion.
Nah, real homeopathic meds don't even have sugar, they're just water.
I've never understood why console manufacturers don't try to make their consoles last longer. They're hugely expensive to make, hugely expensive for the consumer to buy, and have frequently made the manufacturer a net loss on sales.
Competition. If they don't make a new console, someone else will.
Nintendo learned it the hard way when the Genesis started trouncing the NES, and they still hate the fact that they have to keep developing new systems, and have a tendency to promise their new consoles a long time before they're actually finished in order to keep their fans from buying the competitor's new system. And they really liked the Gameboy development cycle. In fact, I remember a few cycles ago when they (and I think this was for the gamecube but not sure) actually had an advertising campaign complaining about the constant console development, and trying to convince gamers that their next console would be a long-term one that would focus on gameplay and not be dependent on cutting-edge graphics. Weirdest gaming advertising campaign I've ever seen.
I propose that a natural disaster occurring within the borders of a country (earthquake, drought, volcano) counts as an internal force that could change the fate of a nation without any blame falling on that nation's people.
In the absence of an external interfering force (e. g., the army of the Soviet Union), the fate of a nation is determined by its people. Period.
I didn't know you could win an argument by appending a "Period." after your thesis.
I know it seems like an unlikely mix, but I've actually pondered adding a law diploma to my IT one.
Are you serious? Go visit jdunderground.com if you don't believe me, but there is a huge glut of lawyers, and finding a legal job is very, very difficult in this economy.
But, when lawyers can't be tech savvy, why can't they hire tech people to explain to them where the (technical) holes in suits lie?
Lawyers often do hire tech people to advise them on cases, but a lot of the times the cases hinge on things other than technical issues.
Theists are always using the wrong arguments when the try to disprove atheists. They're all about how well bananas fit in the hand and whatnot. That kind of stuff is easily explained by evolution.
You're assuming all theists don't believe in evolution, and all atheists do.
What's the discovery, invention, or innovation here?
Apple never innovates, they just market well.
There's nothing wrong with a layman giving his opinion of legal rulings. I just don't know why slashdot gives him a forum for it, why doesn't Haselton just go to law school if he's that interested?
You mean Lifetime, HSN, basically the ones nobody watches anyway??
No, they mean the Science Channel and Discovery.
Are you serious? Half of the reason why we have such high medical costs are the over-the-top malpractice provisions we have in our laws.
Have you even LOOKED at medical malpractice laws lately? I know in my state doctors are heavily protected. The statute of limitations is short and there are caps on both damages and attorneys' fees, and to even begin the action the plaintiff has to get an affidavit from a medical expert that negligence probably occurred.
And you don't win a malpractice case against a doctor by proving the doctor gave the wrong treatment, but rather that the doctor failed to follow his or her standard of care, which is a lot harder.
The movie industry (and apparently the contributor) apparently assume that anyone who downloads a movie illegally would have been willing to pay $10 to see it legally, if downloading it were not an option.
And most slashdotters assume anyone who downloads a movie illegally wouldn't have paid for the ticket if it had not been available, so no loss.
Obviously, both sides are wrong.
Or you can just buy the waggle wand thingy for the PS3 once it's released next year
You mean the thing that is nothing like the thing he says he wants?
How about Bennett stops trying to lecture me on the law, and I promise not to lecture him on programming? Why has he become slashdot's legal analyst?
Eh, judges have some discretion as to whether to admit illegally obtained evidence. And OJ might have lost the civil suit simply because civil suits have a lower burden of proof you have to show to win (preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.)
Yes. If the judge says 'this is the rule we're going to play by' then that's the rule.
That's what Motions to Reconsider are for! And Motions to Reconsider Motions to Reconsider! And Motions to Reconsider Motions to Reconsider Motions to Reconsider for. THEN you give up.
Okay, maybe I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, but if Americans aren't spending money on mp3s and downloaded movies, aren't they instead spending that money elsewhere? We have one of the lowest savings rates in the world, so it's not like the money is disappearing into our savings accounts.
The thing is, America still produces a lot of entertainment, so the money paid for it tends to stick around in America. Just about everything else you can buy is being sold to you by another country.
As others have pointed out, poker is not a game which is skewed in the house's favor. The house takes a percentage of every pot, called the rake. In poker players play against one another, and while there is a chance element, chance does not favor anyone in the long run.
In traditional poker, yes. Where none of the players see each other, one could be playing for the house; wouldn't they rather make the entire pot rather than a small percentage of it?
Or, you could just rely on the honesty of a fly-by-night, Cayman Islands-based internet company.
Definitely, what's the worst thing that happens? They run their franchises into the ground, ruin the good name of their company, and make horrible movies? That's going to cause you personal WORRY? You are waaaay too emotionally invested in this.
That's going to be true with just about any subject, though. What makes a hard science so much more special than a different subject? An associate's degree in astrophysics tells me someone has a basic grounding in the subject, and would be able to assist in basic research--say as a technician at an observatory. Nobody thinks someone with an AA in astrophysics is an astrophysicist.
Why?
He gets about as much attention as most other novelists here. Slashdot has never been a bookish site.
How about considering that by sharing a song with my friend (btw you're not even allowed to share a headphone since you didn't pay for public broadcasting) I may have gotten the band another fan. Or exposed them to a larger audience, which in turn breeds hte selling of concert tickets and merchandise sales.
... guess how many concerts we're going to and how much merchandise we're buying that time?
So forced marketing against their will. Maybe if they produced the song, they should be allowed to decide their marketing strategy?
Now, if you put us both away in prison for a few years
Name a single person who has been thrown in jail for sharing a song. And I don't mean sharing millions of song via a black market pirating operation for profit, I mean sharing a song with their friend for free.
SMALL BUSINESS POWERS MOST OF THE ECONOMY. THEY CAN'T CHEAT LIKE MS!
They tend to cheat worse. MS at least cheats legally, but I wouldn't trust a lot of small business owners as far as I could throw them.