No, it is not. Computation can be used to create a simulation, but a simulation is not inherently a computation. For example, you can simulate gravity in space by using a rotating space station, but the rotation is not in any way a simulation.
As I said, calling this device a computer is sensationalism. It has been known for decades that this device was simply an orrery.
No, it is an orrery. Computer, by definition, mans that it actually computes something, but an orrery does not compute anything. It merely simulates the motion of certain celestial objects, and any actual computations to be performed from that is left up to the operator of the orrery.
The problem I have with "manipulate", particularly in the context you appear to be using it, is that it connotes exactly the same sort of attempt to control what other people think or believe as what you might see governmental organizations try and do when they censor works that do not agree with their own agenda, and so try to discourage the population from adopting views that do not agree with those of the governing body. That your motivation may be purer in intent than theirs is irrelevant. Even the very best of ends should not have to justify the means, the means must justify themselves or there is no ethical validity to doing them in the first place.
Facts can only turn out to be whatever they actually are. Trying to selectively isolate some of the facts from being presented in your case with the express purpose of making your position appear to have more validity is indicative of the notion that one believes that their case may not actually have more validity than their opponent's after all.... as I said above, this is not ethically sustainable... and the precise kind of lawsuit that "loser pays" is intended to discourage.
I maintain the view that it is wholly unethical to ever wish to manipulate anyone else... for any reason. You do not control what the facts are, so you cannot actually control how the facts will convince anyone else of the merits of your case, nor should you be trying to make them do so, because you cannot change what the facts actually are.
But this is digressing from the point at hand, which is that allegedly, "loser pays" discourages people from suing someone wealthier than they are for fear of losing.
There are exactly two reasons that I can think of that this could happen:
One, they fear that the opponent's position may have greater validity than their own. If they feel this way, then by using the court system to achieve their ends, they are behaving unethically... they are more concerned with selfish agendas than they are with actual justice.
Two, they fear that the court system may make an unjust ruling. If they feel this way, then there is no valid reason to try and use the court system to resolve the conflict either, since it by that person's own belief system the court system does not faithfully represent justice... and so any attempt to sue despite cannot be based on any genuine desire to actually see justice done either. Any correspondence between their position and actual justice is actually just a happy coincidence, but entirely irrelevant to what decision the court may finally make.
If "loser pays" can discourage those who fit in either category, it is acting exactly as intended.
Am I the only one who thinks it would be hilarious to be on a crowded bus and shout "hey Siri" and watch as about fifteen to twenty or so phones all go "ding" at about the same time?
... was to lock down the radio while still allowing user-updates to the firmware? I seem to recall a recent slashdot article (don't have a link handy sorry) that announced that this is exactly what Linksys was choosing to do.
Manipulation means to take control of something, and since you have absolutely no control over whatever the truth happens to be, you cannot ethically manipulate the outcome of a court decision. You can control how you present your case, but that doesn't take any control over what the outcome will actually be if the truth of your case, which you have absolutely no control over, cannot actually convince a judge to make a particular decision. If you do not believe that the merits of the case will convince a judge to side with you, then there is no ethically valid reason to sue in the first place. Yeah, the little guy who fears the consequences losing would be discouraged from suing a wealthy corporation with "loser pays", but that's intentional, because if a person doesn't trust the court system to make a fair decision, then there is no ethically valid reason they should be wanting to use the court system in the first place.
Because at no point does an objective presentation of the truth actually manipulate that person's actions... they evaluate the merits of an idea entirely on their own ability, and absolutely nobody should have any power to manipulate what another person decides. Manipulation, as I have said before, suggests taking a specific attempt to control the outcome, where the only person who should ever be in full control of the outcome is the judge.
I would suggest that all you should actually want from your attorney, assuming you actually believe that you are justified in the first place (and not simply trying to dig for gold or manipulate the court for an entirely selfish agenda that has nothing to do with objective justice) is for him to faithfully represent the truth. Full stop. While obviously you will always want to win, whether a faithful representation of the truth actually convinces the court or not is actually entirely irrelevant. You either believe that the court will deliver a just verdict or you do not. You may always hope that they do, of course, but if you do not have any faith that an accurate representation of the truth, based on nothing but its own merits, can convince a court that your case is more justified than your opponent's, then there is no ethically valid reason you should be suing someone in the first place.
Having an offshore or foreign bank account does not automatically mean you will also have a foreign billing address. I'm having a hard time thinking of why anyone would feel the need to misrepresent their billing address as being in another country anyways, unless there was actually some intent on their part to commit deception.
Assuming that your position is justified, what you should be wanting from your attorney is for him to make an accurate representation of the truth in court. Nothing more, and nothing less. Full stop. If you do not believe that the truth is sufficient to convince a judge that your case has more merit than your opponent, then what ethically valid reason exists to try and use the judicial system to achieve your ends in the first place, regardless of how justified you might feel about it?
First of all, nobody has business manipulating the court at all. That is what "loser pays" is designed to prevent. A person who sues somebody else must necessarily believe that a court would value the merit of their case or else they would not bother suing, and a wealthy organization that knowingly tries to bankrupt somebody that they know is in the right before the case can make it to court will not be able to do so. The only people that are discouraged from filing cases against wealthy organizations for fear of the costs of losing are people who don't have enough faith in the judicial system to deliver a fair and just verdict in the first place, and if they were to continue to pursue legal action in spite of this doubt, they would actually be going to court simply to further their own agenda (typically to profit) regardless of whether that agenda is just or not.
The buyers live in the same jurisdiction as you and would therefore presumably be aware that you were legally obliged to charge sales tax on everything, so it should hardly come as a surprise.
My point is that when the only reason that a person is going to try and use the court system at all to justly sue someone is when they believe that the merit of their case will be sufficient to convince the judge to side with them.... therefore, the potential cost of losing would have no bearing on their willingness to sue because they believe their case already has enough merit to win anyways. Again, if they did not, then they wouldn't be suing in the first place. "Loser pays" only discourages people from suing somebody richer than they are when the suing party has some doubt that the court can competently make a fair and just decision... and even if that doubt were entirely well placed, such people have no business using the court system to further their own ends, no matter *HOW* right they may believe they are. Given a lack of faith in the court system, the only reason to try and sue is that one is seeking some sort of resolution that will personally satisfy their own selfish goals, not because they are seeking a fair and just decision (even if they believe that they are parallel). It should not be the purpose of a court to allow people to manipulate its operation so that they can further their own agendas, even if their agendas are in harmony with justice.
No... I believe that a person who doesn't believe that a judge will deliver a fair verdict has no business trying to sue anyone... because even if they were right, they would only be deliberately trying to manipulate a system that is supposed to be impartial to simply further their own ends,
Let me ask you a question, why would anyone sue someone if they did not believe that the court would side with them? You only have something to lose if you think that you could lose in the first place. The only reason to sue is if you think that you are right, and if you actually think you will lose despite being right, then you do not have any faith in the judicial system, Whether that distrust is deserved is entirely irrelevant, if you do not have faith in the judicial system to deliver a fair verdict, then there is no reason to try to use the legal system in the first place.
Therefore, the little guy is *not* discouraged from suing the big corporation except to the extent that they shouldn't be suing at all.
Why would a person ever be inclined to try and use the court system in the first place if they did not believe that the legitimacy of their case would produce an outcome in their favour? It follows almost axiomatically that if you are willing to go to court over a matter, then you must believe that justice is going to be served by the effort, or else you would simply not bother, regardless if there was a "loser pays" policy or not.
If you have a sales tax form when you get a garage sale permit, then all you have to do is collect the sales tax. You don't pay it out of your profits, you simply remit the taxes that you collected from the buyers. If you don't charge it, then obviously it comes out of your own pocket, but presumably you will, since you would have all the appropriate registration for it anyways.
It seems that your sole reason for concluding that, however, is based simply on the notion that I've had a number of responses disagree with what I've said... virtually all of which amount to little more than calling me names, telling me to shut up, or making accusations about my character that do not have any basis in fact, and with only one noteworthy exception, providing absolutely nothing of any substance that would suggest that what I've said is in any way incorrect. Somehow, in all of this, I am the one who is the moron.
Challenging the fact that a person who has challenged what I've said has failed to provide a coherent and reasoned counter to my position does not make me a moron... at most it only makes me unpopular.
I like the theory of loser pays, however it needs to be implemented very carefully to avoid abuses, and not a single country has yet managed to strike that balance.
So because of exceptions to the general rule, we should not bother to implement a justice system that cannot be manipulated simply by how much money you happen to have?
Slashdot Mirror
Dang... meant to hit preview and accidentally hit submit.
I mean that the rotation is not a *computation*.
No, it is not. Computation can be used to create a simulation, but a simulation is not inherently a computation. For example, you can simulate gravity in space by using a rotating space station, but the rotation is not in any way a simulation.
As I said, calling this device a computer is sensationalism. It has been known for decades that this device was simply an orrery.
No, it is an orrery. Computer, by definition, mans that it actually computes something, but an orrery does not compute anything. It merely simulates the motion of certain celestial objects, and any actual computations to be performed from that is left up to the operator of the orrery.
Which is an orrery, not a computer. The only reason to label it the latter is for sensationalism.
Although the fact that they could build something precise enough to achieve this over 2000 years ago is still pretty damn impressive.
The problem I have with "manipulate", particularly in the context you appear to be using it, is that it connotes exactly the same sort of attempt to control what other people think or believe as what you might see governmental organizations try and do when they censor works that do not agree with their own agenda, and so try to discourage the population from adopting views that do not agree with those of the governing body. That your motivation may be purer in intent than theirs is irrelevant. Even the very best of ends should not have to justify the means, the means must justify themselves or there is no ethical validity to doing them in the first place.
Facts can only turn out to be whatever they actually are. Trying to selectively isolate some of the facts from being presented in your case with the express purpose of making your position appear to have more validity is indicative of the notion that one believes that their case may not actually have more validity than their opponent's after all.... as I said above, this is not ethically sustainable... and the precise kind of lawsuit that "loser pays" is intended to discourage.
I maintain the view that it is wholly unethical to ever wish to manipulate anyone else... for any reason. You do not control what the facts are, so you cannot actually control how the facts will convince anyone else of the merits of your case, nor should you be trying to make them do so, because you cannot change what the facts actually are.
But this is digressing from the point at hand, which is that allegedly, "loser pays" discourages people from suing someone wealthier than they are for fear of losing.
There are exactly two reasons that I can think of that this could happen:
One, they fear that the opponent's position may have greater validity than their own. If they feel this way, then by using the court system to achieve their ends, they are behaving unethically... they are more concerned with selfish agendas than they are with actual justice.
Two, they fear that the court system may make an unjust ruling. If they feel this way, then there is no valid reason to try and use the court system to resolve the conflict either, since it by that person's own belief system the court system does not faithfully represent justice... and so any attempt to sue despite cannot be based on any genuine desire to actually see justice done either. Any correspondence between their position and actual justice is actually just a happy coincidence, but entirely irrelevant to what decision the court may finally make.
If "loser pays" can discourage those who fit in either category, it is acting exactly as intended.
Am I the only one who thinks it would be hilarious to be on a crowded bus and shout "hey Siri" and watch as about fifteen to twenty or so phones all go "ding" at about the same time?
... was to lock down the radio while still allowing user-updates to the firmware? I seem to recall a recent slashdot article (don't have a link handy sorry) that announced that this is exactly what Linksys was choosing to do.
Manipulation means to take control of something, and since you have absolutely no control over whatever the truth happens to be, you cannot ethically manipulate the outcome of a court decision. You can control how you present your case, but that doesn't take any control over what the outcome will actually be if the truth of your case, which you have absolutely no control over, cannot actually convince a judge to make a particular decision. If you do not believe that the merits of the case will convince a judge to side with you, then there is no ethically valid reason to sue in the first place. Yeah, the little guy who fears the consequences losing would be discouraged from suing a wealthy corporation with "loser pays", but that's intentional, because if a person doesn't trust the court system to make a fair decision, then there is no ethically valid reason they should be wanting to use the court system in the first place.
Because at no point does an objective presentation of the truth actually manipulate that person's actions... they evaluate the merits of an idea entirely on their own ability, and absolutely nobody should have any power to manipulate what another person decides. Manipulation, as I have said before, suggests taking a specific attempt to control the outcome, where the only person who should ever be in full control of the outcome is the judge.
I would suggest that all you should actually want from your attorney, assuming you actually believe that you are justified in the first place (and not simply trying to dig for gold or manipulate the court for an entirely selfish agenda that has nothing to do with objective justice) is for him to faithfully represent the truth. Full stop. While obviously you will always want to win, whether a faithful representation of the truth actually convinces the court or not is actually entirely irrelevant. You either believe that the court will deliver a just verdict or you do not. You may always hope that they do, of course, but if you do not have any faith that an accurate representation of the truth, based on nothing but its own merits, can convince a court that your case is more justified than your opponent's, then there is no ethically valid reason you should be suing someone in the first place.
Having an offshore or foreign bank account does not automatically mean you will also have a foreign billing address. I'm having a hard time thinking of why anyone would feel the need to misrepresent their billing address as being in another country anyways, unless there was actually some intent on their part to commit deception.
Assuming that your position is justified, what you should be wanting from your attorney is for him to make an accurate representation of the truth in court. Nothing more, and nothing less. Full stop. If you do not believe that the truth is sufficient to convince a judge that your case has more merit than your opponent, then what ethically valid reason exists to try and use the judicial system to achieve your ends in the first place, regardless of how justified you might feel about it?
First of all, nobody has business manipulating the court at all. That is what "loser pays" is designed to prevent. A person who sues somebody else must necessarily believe that a court would value the merit of their case or else they would not bother suing, and a wealthy organization that knowingly tries to bankrupt somebody that they know is in the right before the case can make it to court will not be able to do so. The only people that are discouraged from filing cases against wealthy organizations for fear of the costs of losing are people who don't have enough faith in the judicial system to deliver a fair and just verdict in the first place, and if they were to continue to pursue legal action in spite of this doubt, they would actually be going to court simply to further their own agenda (typically to profit) regardless of whether that agenda is just or not.
The buyers live in the same jurisdiction as you and would therefore presumably be aware that you were legally obliged to charge sales tax on everything, so it should hardly come as a surprise.
My point is that when the only reason that a person is going to try and use the court system at all to justly sue someone is when they believe that the merit of their case will be sufficient to convince the judge to side with them.... therefore, the potential cost of losing would have no bearing on their willingness to sue because they believe their case already has enough merit to win anyways. Again, if they did not, then they wouldn't be suing in the first place. "Loser pays" only discourages people from suing somebody richer than they are when the suing party has some doubt that the court can competently make a fair and just decision... and even if that doubt were entirely well placed, such people have no business using the court system to further their own ends, no matter *HOW* right they may believe they are. Given a lack of faith in the court system, the only reason to try and sue is that one is seeking some sort of resolution that will personally satisfy their own selfish goals, not because they are seeking a fair and just decision (even if they believe that they are parallel). It should not be the purpose of a court to allow people to manipulate its operation so that they can further their own agendas, even if their agendas are in harmony with justice.
No... I believe that a person who doesn't believe that a judge will deliver a fair verdict has no business trying to sue anyone... because even if they were right, they would only be deliberately trying to manipulate a system that is supposed to be impartial to simply further their own ends,
Let me ask you a question, why would anyone sue someone if they did not believe that the court would side with them? You only have something to lose if you think that you could lose in the first place. The only reason to sue is if you think that you are right, and if you actually think you will lose despite being right, then you do not have any faith in the judicial system, Whether that distrust is deserved is entirely irrelevant, if you do not have faith in the judicial system to deliver a fair verdict, then there is no reason to try to use the legal system in the first place.
Therefore, the little guy is *not* discouraged from suing the big corporation except to the extent that they shouldn't be suing at all.
Why would a person ever be inclined to try and use the court system in the first place if they did not believe that the legitimacy of their case would produce an outcome in their favour? It follows almost axiomatically that if you are willing to go to court over a matter, then you must believe that justice is going to be served by the effort, or else you would simply not bother, regardless if there was a "loser pays" policy or not.
If you have a sales tax form when you get a garage sale permit, then all you have to do is collect the sales tax. You don't pay it out of your profits, you simply remit the taxes that you collected from the buyers. If you don't charge it, then obviously it comes out of your own pocket, but presumably you will, since you would have all the appropriate registration for it anyways.
It seems that your sole reason for concluding that, however, is based simply on the notion that I've had a number of responses disagree with what I've said... virtually all of which amount to little more than calling me names, telling me to shut up, or making accusations about my character that do not have any basis in fact, and with only one noteworthy exception, providing absolutely nothing of any substance that would suggest that what I've said is in any way incorrect. Somehow, in all of this, I am the one who is the moron.
Challenging the fact that a person who has challenged what I've said has failed to provide a coherent and reasoned counter to my position does not make me a moron... at most it only makes me unpopular.
Unpopular, however, does not mean wrong.
On that point, we are in full agreement.
So because of exceptions to the general rule, we should not bother to implement a justice system that cannot be manipulated simply by how much money you happen to have?
Ah... the best kind of evidence. Anecdotal.