Voting for lawyers to political office makes sense in that way, but in writing law, they are easily in a position to help their own profession.
I've heard this repeated again and again and I really have to say it's not a valid argument. As a lawyer I don't have any secret loyalty to my "profession"; I would like it to be as reputable as it can be, but that doesn't mean that if I were elected to Congress I'd pass laws with the goal of enriching people who I don't know because I had some weird affinity for them because they studied the same subject in graduate school. That's like assuming that electing an art history major to Congress is goign to pass laws specifically to benefit other art history majors.
Think back to the TV shows of the '50's and '60's. We had an Astronaut/physics guy as the main character in I dream of Jeanie, A senior marketing executive as the husband of a witch in Bewitched, and many many others. The key factor was, they were all intelligent.
That's absurd. TV these days is full of people who practice what are considered intellectually demanding professions; doctors, lawyers, scientists. I would guess that it is MORE common now than it was in the 50's and 60's.
No, I don't agree. That's an idiotic assertion, like saying not having a background in astrophysics is a positive benefit to keeping an open mind about string theory.
The CRU emails, which only the dishonest or scientifically ignorant, caused very little damage. China is gearing up to be the 21st century leader in green technology. Compare the global view now to the global view 10 years ago, and 20 years ago, and only a halfwit would think the AGC consensus was "dying."
Typical eurocentric blindness. The kind of "mitigation" you describe is impractical on the scale that would be needed globally with sea level rise. Not everyone lives in a tiny island.
You are profoundly ignorant of what the real issues are here; human civilization, agriculture, settlement patterns are highly dependent on a very narrow band of climate values. Even minor changes would cause extreme effects, not on the earth as a whole but rather humanity. The funny thing is you've lost the argument; anthropogenic global warming is real, and it is accepted by the majority of decision makers. People like you have been relegated to this, arguing on internet forums as governments, corporations, etc. start (albeit slowly) to deal with what everyone else accepts. You can rant and rave against those evil corrupt climate scientists, but the simple fact is humanity is listening to them and not to people like you.
So you're claiming the vast majority of climate scientists are willing to intellectually sell themselves out, BUT they've done it to the lowest bidder.
From TFA. . . What absolute rubbish from yet another climate scientist who fails to understand random numbers.
I don't think the climate scientist wrote the article.
While I don't have a clue on whether his data is true or not
Several phrases you have used indicate that you do have a very strong anti-anthropogenic global warming bias: "yet another climate scientist"; "alarmist"; "rabid green."
since there is little we can do to stop it
We could make a serious effort to reduce human-produced carbon dioxide and deforestation.
So we're to rely on electric-powered ham radios instead, across a finite number of channels? Ham radios can provide a useful service, but the messianic complex some of their proponents adopt is obnoxious.
Cell phones will still work, businesses generally have emergency backup power, as do hospitals, firehouses, police departments, and the military. Even a majority of adult Americans have access to a gas-powered generator in the form of their cars.
The infrastructure is getting more and more robust though in terms of (unintentional) redundancy. Phone lines, wireless, fiber optic, cable, satellite; not to mention military and emergency services own communications systems.
Personal knowledge can come from many sources, including being told. It's entirely possible for an affidavit to be held legally insufficient because it's based on hearsay or because the affiant does not state the basis for their personal knowledge, it's another thing for it to rise to the level of perjury, which has very specific elements.
Personal knowledge is not necessarily correct knowledge. Let's say I think I had a turkey sandwich for dinner last night. I'm remembering it wrong, though, and I actually had a slice of pizza. If I swear to those facts in a declaration/affidavit, I have personal knowledge of what I'm testifying about, but I'm not perjuring myself.
In this case, it's possible that the lawyer never received service of the lawsuits and his clients told him they never received it. As for the "related company" idea, just because two companies have the same owner does not mean they are "related" if that's the only connection. "Related company" typically means there is some formal legal ownership of one or the other; a subsidiary and parent, for example.
Additionally, "related company" likely has more of a c
Did the Court make a finding of fact that he had in fact perjured himself? It's not perjury that he swore to something that was wrong, it's only perjury if he did it knowingly.
So they were given essentially permission to modify a single game, World of Warcraft, and extrapolated that they thus had permission to incorporate whatever other games Blizzard has? And it's uncool of Blizzard to say "hey, wait a minute!"?
Slashdot Mirror
Voting for lawyers to political office makes sense in that way, but in writing law, they are easily in a position to help their own profession.
I've heard this repeated again and again and I really have to say it's not a valid argument. As a lawyer I don't have any secret loyalty to my "profession"; I would like it to be as reputable as it can be, but that doesn't mean that if I were elected to Congress I'd pass laws with the goal of enriching people who I don't know because I had some weird affinity for them because they studied the same subject in graduate school. That's like assuming that electing an art history major to Congress is goign to pass laws specifically to benefit other art history majors.
Think back to the TV shows of the '50's and '60's. We had an Astronaut/physics guy as the main character in I dream of Jeanie, A senior marketing executive as the husband of a witch in Bewitched, and many many others. The key factor was, they were all intelligent.
That's absurd. TV these days is full of people who practice what are considered intellectually demanding professions; doctors, lawyers, scientists. I would guess that it is MORE common now than it was in the 50's and 60's.
I would guess that for those graduating now or within the past few years, engineers make significantly more than lawyers.
No, I don't agree. That's an idiotic assertion, like saying not having a background in astrophysics is a positive benefit to keeping an open mind about string theory.
Meant to type "which only the dishonest or scientifically ignorant think meant much"
The CRU emails, which only the dishonest or scientifically ignorant, caused very little damage. China is gearing up to be the 21st century leader in green technology. Compare the global view now to the global view 10 years ago, and 20 years ago, and only a halfwit would think the AGC consensus was "dying."
Strawman. Who has ever argued that?
Typical eurocentric blindness. The kind of "mitigation" you describe is impractical on the scale that would be needed globally with sea level rise. Not everyone lives in a tiny island.
You are profoundly ignorant of what the real issues are here; human civilization, agriculture, settlement patterns are highly dependent on a very narrow band of climate values. Even minor changes would cause extreme effects, not on the earth as a whole but rather humanity. The funny thing is you've lost the argument; anthropogenic global warming is real, and it is accepted by the majority of decision makers. People like you have been relegated to this, arguing on internet forums as governments, corporations, etc. start (albeit slowly) to deal with what everyone else accepts. You can rant and rave against those evil corrupt climate scientists, but the simple fact is humanity is listening to them and not to people like you.
And you have absolutely no proof of that or climatology background.
So you're claiming the vast majority of climate scientists are willing to intellectually sell themselves out, BUT they've done it to the lowest bidder.
From TFA. . . What absolute rubbish from yet another climate scientist who fails to understand random numbers.
I don't think the climate scientist wrote the article.
While I don't have a clue on whether his data is true or not
Several phrases you have used indicate that you do have a very strong anti-anthropogenic global warming bias: "yet another climate scientist"; "alarmist"; "rabid green."
since there is little we can do to stop it
We could make a serious effort to reduce human-produced carbon dioxide and deforestation.
Yeah, with Apple's terrible track record at UI this will probably bea complete disaster....
How's their track record on mice, though?
Wikileaks just waits for others to the gathering, they just do the publishing
Don't forget the taking-all-the-credit part, that takes effort.
So we're to rely on electric-powered ham radios instead, across a finite number of channels? Ham radios can provide a useful service, but the messianic complex some of their proponents adopt is obnoxious.
Cell phones will still work, businesses generally have emergency backup power, as do hospitals, firehouses, police departments, and the military. Even a majority of adult Americans have access to a gas-powered generator in the form of their cars.
The infrastructure is getting more and more robust though in terms of (unintentional) redundancy. Phone lines, wireless, fiber optic, cable, satellite; not to mention military and emergency services own communications systems.
Personal knowledge can come from many sources, including being told. It's entirely possible for an affidavit to be held legally insufficient because it's based on hearsay or because the affiant does not state the basis for their personal knowledge, it's another thing for it to rise to the level of perjury, which has very specific elements.
"It's also noted in the first line of the second paragraph of the article... "
The first line of the second paragraph of the article is "Ryan's email to us:"
Personal knowledge is not necessarily correct knowledge. Let's say I think I had a turkey sandwich for dinner last night. I'm remembering it wrong, though, and I actually had a slice of pizza. If I swear to those facts in a declaration/affidavit, I have personal knowledge of what I'm testifying about, but I'm not perjuring myself.
In this case, it's possible that the lawyer never received service of the lawsuits and his clients told him they never received it. As for the "related company" idea, just because two companies have the same owner does not mean they are "related" if that's the only connection. "Related company" typically means there is some formal legal ownership of one or the other; a subsidiary and parent, for example. Additionally, "related company" likely has more of a c
Did the Court make a finding of fact that he had in fact perjured himself? It's not perjury that he swore to something that was wrong, it's only perjury if he did it knowingly.
And then laugh as your neighbors come over and beat you down for killing their internet access.
I don't generally read those too closely, since they're usually wrong.
Ahhhhh....alright. TFA actually did not say that. In that case then yeah, Blizzard's probably in the wrong.
So they were given essentially permission to modify a single game, World of Warcraft, and extrapolated that they thus had permission to incorporate whatever other games Blizzard has? And it's uncool of Blizzard to say "hey, wait a minute!"?