I have been a registered independent all of my voting life. I did not run (and if nominated would not), nonetheless I am informed that I have received vote(s) for a Congressional seat.
If elected I would serve under the same sort of social ethics that motivate me to remove stranger's garbage cans from the middle of the road, but frankly the idea gives me the fucking willies.
From my personal perspective I think the essential problem is not so much getting independents elected, but getting them to run. The same reasons that make them independent make them disinclined.
No, what election officials evidently want is speed and ease-of-use. Hopefully they also want accuracy and precision, but the evidence suggests that many don't value those as highly.
I really wish Moore hadn't brought us the trash-umentary genre. There's enough bullshit to filter out there without these people adding to it.
I greatly prefer Al Franken myself, but then I'm a New England intellectual. I can see where Moore would have appeal to the working class, middle America New Dealer.
Conversely, however, my objection to Rush Limbaugh is not that he's a "conservative," but that he's a clown. I only rarely agreed with him, but I always listened to Bill Buckley. He made these things called "arguments."
And there, I think, is the heart of the matter. It isn't so much that what Rush/Moore do is "wrong," it's the lack of general perception, even among "journalists," of the difference between news, opinion and debate.
Where people understand these differences all have their place. Where they do not whoever can fire up the most mass hysteria wins.
How to fix that issue: pass a law that you have to pay any employee or contracted employee a sum that is at least the prevailing wage for the area in which the company is located, and national laws also must apply.
Cool! All the outsourced Indian IT jobs for Americans, at minimum wage, you can eat.
I saw CSI for the first time about a week ago. Frankly I was first annoyed and then appalled. It wasn't until I saw the closing credits that I fully understood why. I won't name names, but his initials are "J.B."
If they are going to procede as CSI we are all doomed. I mean who wants to go around for the rest of their lives looking at the world through orange tinted glasses?
Although I admit that the clean, shiny luxury accommodation holding cells would be a nice upgrade on reality.
Of course they aren't and I never said they were. That does not mean they are not in particular cases.
Get thee hence to the library and you will likely find factual basis for affirmative defense encoded in black letter law. Laws regarding sex with minors is the most likely place to start.
The partners being legally married, for instance, may be an affirmative defense against a charge of "statutory rape."
The fact of the marriage absolves defendant of liability; even though the charge may be valid by the letter of specific code.
. ..an insanity defense for example. ..
Are you alleging that HBO/Google might put forward an insanity defense to libel?
Facts by themselves are not even a defense if used to punch holes in the prima facie case.
Libel is interesting in that the prima facie case rests on defamation; but defamation may not be libel.
"Ann Bolyn has six fingers on her left hand," is so defamatory that she not only always wore gloves in public to hide the fact, but required all ladies of her court to wear gloves to hide the fact that she was hiding the fact.
"If the glove is removed you must dismiss," does not address the question of defamation at all; however, since the six fingers are a fact it removes liability for the statement, even though defamatory; hence whether or not the statement was actually made becomes moot.
Libel is innately a question of liability for defamation, thus there are those who assert that all defenses against libel are innately affirmative.
Er, no, proof is not moot when an affirmative defense is "present". As with elements of the plaintiff's case, affirmative defenses must be proven.
Proof of the complaint is moot. Certainly affirmative defenses need to be proven, they do not need to speak to the complaint however.
Pretrial:
"My client may or may not have done foo, but that is moot because of bar. Since there is no possibility of redress the case no longer has standing. Move to dismiss."
This has nothing to do with the legal framework under which the plaintiff has the burden of proof and retains that burden of proof if the case is to move forward.
You are going to extraordinary lengths of linguistic contortions to try to deny that you erred in discribing facts as an affirmative defense, but you aren't succeeding.
That's what I'm supposed to do. Deciding argument is now up to the judge, because you violated rule one. I had already implicitly accepted your point. You had won. By disputing that which had not been disputed you opened yourself to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Did you know that you look extraordinarily like the judge's wife's lover? I did.
Well unless you were one of my students it's not my fault that you do not know how to conduct an examination.
Rule 1: Do not dispute that which is not in dispute.
Do you have anything useful to add?
Truth is not an affirmative defense to defamation (libel or slander). ..
I also did not say "defamation," a necessary, but not sufficient, component of libel or slander.
One makes a prima facie case for defamation in order to demonstrate actionability for libel.
Facts are evidence not in dispute. Facts may be defamatory, but not libelous. Truth is what is argued and to be decided. That's what a trial is for.
Whether a defense is affirmative or not has nothing to do with who has the burden of proof (otherwise there would be no such thing as an affirmative defense in the US), as it addresses only the issue of liability; i.e. proof is moot when an affirmative defense is present.
Thus in jurisdictions in which facts are not libelous, facts are an affirmative defense, truth an absolute defense.
I did not say "US." It is common practice for plaintiffs with an international presence to file in a plaintiff friendly jurisdiction and use any finding in their favor to defame the defendant in other locales. Given Diebold's international presence and generally belligerent nature one might reasonably assume they would follow this course.
I would if I were them; which is why I wouldn't work for them.
To determine facts there is a legal process known as "discovery." I don't imagine that Diebold is going to be in much of a hurry to go there; hissy fits are their stock in trade.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, I just wouldn't belong to any party that would have me as part of its constituency is all.
KFG
I have been a registered independent all of my voting life. I did not run (and if nominated would not), nonetheless I am informed that I have received vote(s) for a Congressional seat.
If elected I would serve under the same sort of social ethics that motivate me to remove stranger's garbage cans from the middle of the road, but frankly the idea gives me the fucking willies.
From my personal perspective I think the essential problem is not so much getting independents elected, but getting them to run. The same reasons that make them independent make them disinclined.
Plato had something to say about this.
KFG
Oooooooooooh no! I'm not going down that road again. I've still got scars from the last time I cracked a joke about it.
KFG
Show us the BMD (Beta of Mass Destruction).
KFG
No, what election officials evidently want is speed and ease-of-use. Hopefully they also want accuracy and precision, but the evidence suggests that many don't value those as highly.
See SQL.
KFG
I really wish Moore hadn't brought us the trash-umentary genre. There's enough bullshit to filter out there without these people adding to it.
I greatly prefer Al Franken myself, but then I'm a New England intellectual. I can see where Moore would have appeal to the working class, middle America New Dealer.
Conversely, however, my objection to Rush Limbaugh is not that he's a "conservative," but that he's a clown. I only rarely agreed with him, but I always listened to Bill Buckley. He made these things called "arguments."
And there, I think, is the heart of the matter. It isn't so much that what Rush/Moore do is "wrong," it's the lack of general perception, even among "journalists," of the difference between news, opinion and debate.
Where people understand these differences all have their place. Where they do not whoever can fire up the most mass hysteria wins.
Observe advertisements for household cleaners.
KFG
How to fix that issue: pass a law that you have to pay any employee or contracted employee a sum that is at least the prevailing wage for the area in which the company is located, and national laws also must apply.
Cool! All the outsourced Indian IT jobs for Americans, at minimum wage, you can eat.
KFG
I saw CSI for the first time about a week ago. Frankly I was first annoyed and then appalled. It wasn't until I saw the closing credits that I fully understood why. I won't name names, but his initials are "J.B."
If they are going to procede as CSI we are all doomed. I mean who wants to go around for the rest of their lives looking at the world through orange tinted glasses?
Although I admit that the clean, shiny luxury accommodation holding cells would be a nice upgrade on reality.
KFG
Since this line of debate was started by your claim that there was no burden of proof with affirmative defenses
This is incorrect.
KFG
Facts by themselves are not affirmative defenses.
.an insanity defense for example. . .
Of course they aren't and I never said they were. That does not mean they are not in particular cases.
Get thee hence to the library and you will likely find factual basis for affirmative defense encoded in black letter law. Laws regarding sex with minors is the most likely place to start.
The partners being legally married, for instance, may be an affirmative defense against a charge of "statutory rape."
The fact of the marriage absolves defendant of liability; even though the charge may be valid by the letter of specific code.
. .
Are you alleging that HBO/Google might put forward an insanity defense to libel?
Facts by themselves are not even a defense if used to punch holes in the prima facie case.
Libel is interesting in that the prima facie case rests on defamation; but defamation may not be libel.
"Ann Bolyn has six fingers on her left hand," is so defamatory that she not only always wore gloves in public to hide the fact, but required all ladies of her court to wear gloves to hide the fact that she was hiding the fact.
"If the glove is removed you must dismiss," does not address the question of defamation at all; however, since the six fingers are a fact it removes liability for the statement, even though defamatory; hence whether or not the statement was actually made becomes moot.
Libel is innately a question of liability for defamation, thus there are those who assert that all defenses against libel are innately affirmative.
KFG
Er, no, proof is not moot when an affirmative defense is "present". As with elements of the plaintiff's case, affirmative defenses must be proven.
Proof of the complaint is moot. Certainly affirmative defenses need to be proven, they do not need to speak to the complaint however.
Pretrial:
"My client may or may not have done foo, but that is moot because of bar. Since there is no possibility of redress the case no longer has standing. Move to dismiss."
This has nothing to do with the legal framework under which the plaintiff has the burden of proof and retains that burden of proof if the case is to move forward.
You are going to extraordinary lengths of linguistic contortions to try to deny that you erred in discribing facts as an affirmative defense, but you aren't succeeding.
That's what I'm supposed to do. Deciding argument is now up to the judge, because you violated rule one. I had already implicitly accepted your point. You had won. By disputing that which had not been disputed you opened yourself to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Did you know that you look extraordinarily like the judge's wife's lover? I did.
KFG
Hmm, would you work for anyone?
I do not.
KFG
Supporting the Apple Monopoly on Music doesn't sound like such a bad idea, eh?
Yes. In fact, it's an excellent example of why supporting a monopoly is a bad idea.
KFG
Candidates now offer you a tax cut --so you can buy your own bottle of Wild Turkey (maybe even three bottles with a typical tax refund!).
People who vote for five bucks and a bottle of Wild Turkey do not get tax refunds.
KFG
If DRM isn't inherently evil, it certainly doesn't have anything going for it.
And that's why your root password is "12345," just like the combination on your luggage.
KFG
Well unless you were one of my students it's not my fault that you do not know how to conduct an examination.
Rule 1: Do not dispute that which is not in dispute.
Do you have anything useful to add?
I also did not say "defamation," a necessary, but not sufficient, component of libel or slander.
One makes a prima facie case for defamation in order to demonstrate actionability for libel.
Facts are evidence not in dispute. Facts may be defamatory, but not libelous. Truth is what is argued and to be decided. That's what a trial is for.
Whether a defense is affirmative or not has nothing to do with who has the burden of proof (otherwise there would be no such thing as an affirmative defense in the US), as it addresses only the issue of liability; i.e. proof is moot when an affirmative defense is present.
Thus in jurisdictions in which facts are not libelous, facts are an affirmative defense, truth an absolute defense.
I did not say "US." It is common practice for plaintiffs with an international presence to file in a plaintiff friendly jurisdiction and use any finding in their favor to defame the defendant in other locales. Given Diebold's international presence and generally belligerent nature one might reasonably assume they would follow this course.
I would if I were them; which is why I wouldn't work for them.
KFG
I did not dispute anything but that which I disputed.
.it seemed most likely that you mistook "fact" for "truth" . . .
. .
I disputed this because I did not.
KFG
Truth is not an affirmative defense . . .
I did not say "truth."
KFG
Fact is an affirmative defense to libel.
To determine facts there is a legal process known as "discovery." I don't imagine that Diebold is going to be in much of a hurry to go there; hissy fits are their stock in trade.
Just as it is for all abusive control freaks.
KFG
Yes, because you still have the unlimited right to yell, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater not on fire. Or incite a riot.
The word you need to study is "liability."
KFG
Age of consent and age of majority are different legal issues.
Whether or not you consider them different moral issues is your issue.
KFG
And here I thought I was just being a Dickhead.
KFG
Bring on proportional representation ...
The framers were familiar with proportional representation. That's why they rejected it along with pure democracy.
KFG
Only if you synergize it with hemp.
KFG
. . .while providing the illusion of participation. How apropos.
KFG