First off, I said that is "appears" that only 1% are justified. I didn't say "exactly" or "approximately" because I doubt there are any actual statistics on the percent of justified lawsuits vs bullshit lawsuits.
Then you admit you've added nothing to the discussion; why should we rely on your statement of fact if you're not sure of it yourself. The majority of actions probably fall into a few narrow categories: auto accidents where someone actually was at fault; foreclosure actions, where in fact someone usually wasn't paying their mortgage; credit card debt actions where someone actually did run up debt; DUI where someone was actually driving drunk; drug possession cases where someone was actually possessing drugs. Or do you think some of these weren't argued?
Ah, childish insults and ignoring the fact that virtually EVERYONE in society (regardless of age and education) despises lawyers, not just high school kids. I have to say, do you use those petty insults and avoid the issue at hand at work?
Actually, lawyers do have a negative reputation these days, and a lot of this is because of exactly what I was criticizing in my initial post; creating a system that pushes for an oversupply. The idea that "virtually EVERYONE" in society DESPISES lawyers is a ridiculous overstatement though. I have no trouble, as a lawyer, making non-lawyer friends and dating non-lawyer women. That would probably be more difficult if virtually EVERYONE despised me because I got a JD and subsequently passed the bar exam.
Well, he will be able to confirm that his facts are pretty much still true. Do you think you will be able to pry your face from the back of ambulance to spew some more lies in an attempt to make yourself seem more legitimate as a person?
That 1% of lawsuits are non-frivolous? No, he's not going to prove that, because it's an idiotic assertion. And nice try, but I don't do personal injury work. And I assure you, your good opinion would be meaningless to me, you revolting little joke of a person.
Considering the fact that it appears to be only say 1% of lawsuits are actually justified
I don't know that making up facts is the best way to sway your listeners with your argument.
The overwhelming majority of lawyers go into it because they want to make a lot of money by financially raping people who've done nothing wrong
The overwhelming majority of lawyers aren't trial lawyers; of those who are, a sizeable number are prosecutors or defense attorneys, who are charging (or working for free) for people who have, in many cases, done wrong.
There's a reason most people despise lawyers and refer to them as things like leeches and bloodsuckers.
When you graduate high school and start getting your information from sources other than other slashdot posters, come back and we can talk.
Not to be hurtful, but I'm baffled by the notion that anyone could look at our society and not see that there was an obvious oversupply of lawyers. That's why there are all the jokes (and non-jokes) about them being leeches, etc.
The ABA and the law schools pretty much lie to prospective students. I don't mean mislead, or present incomplete information, I mean they will knowingly lie about employment prospects. I didn't want to rely on sort of "everyone knows" information like the supposed oversupply of lawyers, so I researched and tracked down statistics for my law school, without knowing that those statistics are intentionally twisted. Hadn't expected that; my undergrad school published their own statistics even when they made them look bad, so I thought law schools would do the same. Several schools have been caught lying, and blame "inadvertent" clerical errors, but for some reason the error is always in the same direction. I was also personally caught in another lie, that the JD degree is useful outside the law; it was sold as a more rigorous version of a degree in public policy/administration/government, though it in actuality pretty much forecloses you from being hired in any other field. This last thing is the most annoying, I actually make a good living as a lawyer, but if I had realized that the JD would make that the sole thing I would be able to get a job in, I wouldn't have gone.
Should the government really be trying to manage security across the ENTIRE internet? Would you rather plug 10,000 holes in an old barrel or just build a new barrel? Maybe I just don't understand the issue enough, but wouldn't a separate Government/Military/infrastructure internet be more viable and easier to implement on existing systems thus costing less? And if you really needed access to the public internet, you could control the points of entry and monitor them much easier and more effectively.
Step 1) Set up the infrastructure you suggest; Step 2) allow academic researchers in; Step 3) allow college students in; Step 4) let other countries link up; Step 5) start allowing commercial enterprise in; Step 6) listen to the commercial enterprise whine how they should have more control over the internet; Step 7) listen to other countries whine since the US was nice enough to let them link up to the network, those countries are now entitled to equal control over the network; Step 8) listen to the open source crowd whine how the government is exercising too much control and security should be handled by them in a libertarian free-for-all. We've been through this before, the network won't stay secure.
And every business model they try, the usual slashdot legion of filesharers pop up and complain; many of them will not be happy with anything other than the right to share whatever files they want.
Now that governments across the globe are mobilizing armed men to eliminate file sharers, the world will be a perfect place. Certainly there is nothing worse than file sharing going on if this is their priority.
That's a silly as saying that we shouldn't make rape a crime because it encourages to rapist to then kill the victim to cover it up. Same goes for robbery or any other crime where escalation can cover it up.
But generally we don't punish purported victims of crimes just because the alleged perpetrator was not found guilty. And personally I think no alleged criminal should have his or her name revealed prior to being found guilty.
Rape is a serious crime. No one should be convicted of it without proof. Letting the word of the accuser trump the word of the accused inverts all the accepted legal principles.
My point was mandating severe punishment for women who falsely accuse men of rape is very problematic, because only in a few situations will you be sure that she was making it up, mainly when she comes forward and cops to it. Now, what are the chances of her coming forward and admitting she made it up if she's going to see a lot of jail time? That sort of law would make false accusers less likely to come forward, and would mean more innocents imprisoned. I said nothing about changing the presumption of innocence.
Even if it was the same country, there's nothing especially "civilized" about preventing legislators from commenting. At least around here a legislator doesn't lose their freedom of speech because they were elected to office; and only profoundly ignorant people think "the Government" is a monolithic entity.
Assange is a megalomaniac control freak. This is why he should step down, such "leadership" no longer benefits Wikileak's purpose. He may also be a creep, but that's a separate issue from Wikileaks. Now, megalomaniac control freaks are often creeps...
I think Assange gets so much love on slashdot precisely because an abnormally high percentage of slashdot posters are themselves megalomaniacal control freaks, and they see themselves in him. Just like they saw themselves in Hans Reiser.
Accusations of bribery are rampant on Slashdot whenever a public figure, judge or politician makes a decision the geek does not like.
Exactly; in the long list of why the majority of posters on slashdot irritate the hell out of me, that probably comes first. It's thoughtless, paranoid, and I suspect most of its proponents actually believe it, but they throw the accusation in to look all crafty. Like a federal judge, who is almost always making about a quarter of what they could in private practice, and the party allegedly doing the bribing, are both going to risk their careers and freedom over some everyday case.
Yeah, because the US government has no history of doing anything to people that try to undermine it or piss off those within it. Especially when they have taken the time to personally attack you and your organization repeatedly in public.
Yes because in the entirety of American history nobody who has ever run afoul of the U.S. government has ever been guilty of anything, they are all saints with souls as pure as new-driven snow.
I'm all for rapists being punished. However I also believe a woman who knowingly falsely accuses a man of rape should have to serve the maximum sentence he would have served if convicted. If this were enforced, I think you'd see a huge reduction in the number of rape allegations....and for those feminists who cry foul, I'm not suggesting that if the man isn't convicted the woman should be - I'm only talking about applying this to blatant false accusation.
The problem is generally you only know an accusation is blatantly false if the woman recants; which they are a lot less likely to do if they know it will mean years and years of jail time.
There's a difference between presumed innocent and proven innocent; Assange should be considered the first, not the second. Because he annoyed the US does not automatically mean he MUST be innocent.
Okay, so you're not going to watch a movie on a 3.5 inch screen (a 3.5 _foot_ screen would be more like it), but you're not going to watch movies on a 7 inch screen either, are you?
Uhhh..maybe? A 7 inch screen is 4 times the size of a 3.5 one. And about the minimum size where watching anything longer than 20 minutes becomes realistic.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you've raised the issue, what do you do and how does society benefit from your work?
I work on pension cases, suing on behalf of individuals who got screwed out of portions of their pensions when their plans violated the law.
You still have a computer, I presume.
Don't be stupid, computers are so expensive only the give richest kings in Europe own them.
The rules are here. They're (very) restrictive. I'm not saying they work 100% right. But it's not a free for all to hire cheap labor either... at all.
That's cute that you think companies follow the rules like that...
First off, I said that is "appears" that only 1% are justified. I didn't say "exactly" or "approximately" because I doubt there are any actual statistics on the percent of justified lawsuits vs bullshit lawsuits.
Then you admit you've added nothing to the discussion; why should we rely on your statement of fact if you're not sure of it yourself. The majority of actions probably fall into a few narrow categories: auto accidents where someone actually was at fault; foreclosure actions, where in fact someone usually wasn't paying their mortgage; credit card debt actions where someone actually did run up debt; DUI where someone was actually driving drunk; drug possession cases where someone was actually possessing drugs. Or do you think some of these weren't argued?
Ah, childish insults and ignoring the fact that virtually EVERYONE in society (regardless of age and education) despises lawyers, not just high school kids. I have to say, do you use those petty insults and avoid the issue at hand at work?
Actually, lawyers do have a negative reputation these days, and a lot of this is because of exactly what I was criticizing in my initial post; creating a system that pushes for an oversupply. The idea that "virtually EVERYONE" in society DESPISES lawyers is a ridiculous overstatement though. I have no trouble, as a lawyer, making non-lawyer friends and dating non-lawyer women. That would probably be more difficult if virtually EVERYONE despised me because I got a JD and subsequently passed the bar exam.
Well, he will be able to confirm that his facts are pretty much still true. Do you think you will be able to pry your face from the back of ambulance to spew some more lies in an attempt to make yourself seem more legitimate as a person?
That 1% of lawsuits are non-frivolous? No, he's not going to prove that, because it's an idiotic assertion. And nice try, but I don't do personal injury work. And I assure you, your good opinion would be meaningless to me, you revolting little joke of a person.
Considering the fact that it appears to be only say 1% of lawsuits are actually justified
I don't know that making up facts is the best way to sway your listeners with your argument.
The overwhelming majority of lawyers go into it because they want to make a lot of money by financially raping people who've done nothing wrong
The overwhelming majority of lawyers aren't trial lawyers; of those who are, a sizeable number are prosecutors or defense attorneys, who are charging (or working for free) for people who have, in many cases, done wrong.
There's a reason most people despise lawyers and refer to them as things like leeches and bloodsuckers.
When you graduate high school and start getting your information from sources other than other slashdot posters, come back and we can talk.
Not to be hurtful, but I'm baffled by the notion that anyone could look at our society and not see that there was an obvious oversupply of lawyers. That's why there are all the jokes (and non-jokes) about them being leeches, etc.
The ABA and the law schools pretty much lie to prospective students. I don't mean mislead, or present incomplete information, I mean they will knowingly lie about employment prospects. I didn't want to rely on sort of "everyone knows" information like the supposed oversupply of lawyers, so I researched and tracked down statistics for my law school, without knowing that those statistics are intentionally twisted. Hadn't expected that; my undergrad school published their own statistics even when they made them look bad, so I thought law schools would do the same. Several schools have been caught lying, and blame "inadvertent" clerical errors, but for some reason the error is always in the same direction. I was also personally caught in another lie, that the JD degree is useful outside the law; it was sold as a more rigorous version of a degree in public policy/administration/government, though it in actuality pretty much forecloses you from being hired in any other field. This last thing is the most annoying, I actually make a good living as a lawyer, but if I had realized that the JD would make that the sole thing I would be able to get a job in, I wouldn't have gone.
Should the government really be trying to manage security across the ENTIRE internet? Would you rather plug 10,000 holes in an old barrel or just build a new barrel? Maybe I just don't understand the issue enough, but wouldn't a separate Government/Military/infrastructure internet be more viable and easier to implement on existing systems thus costing less? And if you really needed access to the public internet, you could control the points of entry and monitor them much easier and more effectively.
Step 1) Set up the infrastructure you suggest; Step 2) allow academic researchers in; Step 3) allow college students in; Step 4) let other countries link up; Step 5) start allowing commercial enterprise in; Step 6) listen to the commercial enterprise whine how they should have more control over the internet; Step 7) listen to other countries whine since the US was nice enough to let them link up to the network, those countries are now entitled to equal control over the network; Step 8) listen to the open source crowd whine how the government is exercising too much control and security should be handled by them in a libertarian free-for-all. We've been through this before, the network won't stay secure.
But filesharing will continue, because it's still about the best marketing tool the entertainment industry has.
Right, because when people get something for free consistently, they tend to spontaneously decide to pay for that thing.
I fantasize about only having $57k in debt. Thank you, law school scam.
The business model must change, and is doing so
And every business model they try, the usual slashdot legion of filesharers pop up and complain; many of them will not be happy with anything other than the right to share whatever files they want.
Now that governments across the globe are mobilizing armed men to eliminate file sharers, the world will be a perfect place. Certainly there is nothing worse than file sharing going on if this is their priority.
Does the article state this is their "priority"?
That's a silly as saying that we shouldn't make rape a crime because it encourages to rapist to then kill the victim to cover it up. Same goes for robbery or any other crime where escalation can cover it up.
But generally we don't punish purported victims of crimes just because the alleged perpetrator was not found guilty. And personally I think no alleged criminal should have his or her name revealed prior to being found guilty.
Rape is a serious crime. No one should be convicted of it without proof. Letting the word of the accuser trump the word of the accused inverts all the accepted legal principles.
My point was mandating severe punishment for women who falsely accuse men of rape is very problematic, because only in a few situations will you be sure that she was making it up, mainly when she comes forward and cops to it. Now, what are the chances of her coming forward and admitting she made it up if she's going to see a lot of jail time? That sort of law would make false accusers less likely to come forward, and would mean more innocents imprisoned. I said nothing about changing the presumption of innocence.
No, I'm saying the exact opposite.
I don't think sex works exactly that way. How do you stop in the middle of an orgasm?
The orgasm part doesn't make it sex, the penetration does. You can stop the latter.
Greedy lawyers and laws such as those Swedish rape laws you mention are bringing humanity down from meaningful debate into childish squabbles.
If the other person says stop in the middle, you stop. That's a sensible law. It doesn't bring humanity down.
Even if it was the same country, there's nothing especially "civilized" about preventing legislators from commenting. At least around here a legislator doesn't lose their freedom of speech because they were elected to office; and only profoundly ignorant people think "the Government" is a monolithic entity.
Assange is a megalomaniac control freak. This is why he should step down, such "leadership" no longer benefits Wikileak's purpose. He may also be a creep, but that's a separate issue from Wikileaks. Now, megalomaniac control freaks are often creeps...
I think Assange gets so much love on slashdot precisely because an abnormally high percentage of slashdot posters are themselves megalomaniacal control freaks, and they see themselves in him. Just like they saw themselves in Hans Reiser.
Accusations of bribery are rampant on Slashdot whenever a public figure, judge or politician makes a decision the geek does not like.
Exactly; in the long list of why the majority of posters on slashdot irritate the hell out of me, that probably comes first. It's thoughtless, paranoid, and I suspect most of its proponents actually believe it, but they throw the accusation in to look all crafty. Like a federal judge, who is almost always making about a quarter of what they could in private practice, and the party allegedly doing the bribing, are both going to risk their careers and freedom over some everyday case.
Yeah, because the US government has no history of doing anything to people that try to undermine it or piss off those within it. Especially when they have taken the time to personally attack you and your organization repeatedly in public.
Yes because in the entirety of American history nobody who has ever run afoul of the U.S. government has ever been guilty of anything, they are all saints with souls as pure as new-driven snow.
I'm all for rapists being punished. However I also believe a woman who knowingly falsely accuses a man of rape should have to serve the maximum sentence he would have served if convicted. If this were enforced, I think you'd see a huge reduction in the number of rape allegations....and for those feminists who cry foul, I'm not suggesting that if the man isn't convicted the woman should be - I'm only talking about applying this to blatant false accusation.
The problem is generally you only know an accusation is blatantly false if the woman recants; which they are a lot less likely to do if they know it will mean years and years of jail time.
How about innocent until proven guilty?
There's a difference between presumed innocent and proven innocent; Assange should be considered the first, not the second. Because he annoyed the US does not automatically mean he MUST be innocent.
Okay, so you're not going to watch a movie on a 3.5 inch screen (a 3.5 _foot_ screen would be more like it), but you're not going to watch movies on a 7 inch screen either, are you?
Uhhh..maybe? A 7 inch screen is 4 times the size of a 3.5 one. And about the minimum size where watching anything longer than 20 minutes becomes realistic.
I care about being able to install, without having to ask permission, in the future any or other possible OSs. Windows 7 starter is a non starter.
While I wouldn't use Windows 7 if I could avoid it on a tablet, I'd rather have Windows 7 forced on me than iOS.