Far more sane than the others, which basically amount to "shut up and go away". Or, "I don't agree with you, therefore you are wrong".
So yes... the person in the right can still lose a case, but in general... this is not what happens, as long as both sides have had a fair hearing. I don't dispute that it does happen, only that there would be absolutely no reason for anyone to ever want to use the court system to pursue legal remedy when they felt unjustly wronged in the first place unless it represented the exception and not the general rule. Ask your husband if I am wrong about this.
You are right that justice is not perfect.... but that should not be an excuse for us to settle for a system that can be easily abused by people who happen to have more money than others. Instead, justice should be impartial to one's wealth, and the merits of their case alone should determine who is in the right. While this can be costly for the little guy who is found to be in wrong, even if their case may have appeared to have merit (perhaps only failing to have more merit than the opposing view), at least the bigger corporation that may have won will not have been able to use their economic advantage to win. Justice should apply equally to all.
Do you have any rationalization for that, or was that just a brief outburst of blind prejudice against philosophies that you may not happen to personally believe in?
If one did not believe the legal system to be fair or concerned with truth, there would be no reason to try and use the legal system to sue somebody wealthy in the first place either... the very thing that it is alleged that "loser pays" would discourage.
Does the fact that my notion may be idealistic mean that it is somehow less worthy of consideration?
The entire point of "loser pays" is to discourage people from suing somebody else when their claims are too weak to be sustainable, and to prevent rich corporations that may clearly be in the wrong from using the expense of the legal system to bankrupt a less wealthy opponent before they have had the opportunity to make their case.
Barring judicial corruption, they only lose a so-called legitimate case when they have failed to prove their case.
And just why, exactly, do you think they would have failed to prove it? There are only two reasons that I know of: 1) they didn't have enough money or resources to spent on proving it, which is not an issue if loser pays; and 2) they didn't have a legitimate a case against them in the first place.
Actually no. You don't pay taxes on garage sale income as long as you are selling things for less money than the lesser of what the item is actually worth and what you paid for them.
The *ONLY* reason to believe that you would lose when you otherwise believe you have a legitimate case against somebody is if you actually doubt the legitimacy of your case in the first place... in which case you do not actually sue, which is the entire point.
Why would I lose, if my case were actually legitimate? If I doubted the legitimacy of my case, then obviously I wouldn't sue in the first place, which is the entire point of "loser pays".
If you believe you have a legitimate dispute, then why would you feel that you could not present it adequately to convince a judge, and obtain a ruling in your favor? And if you did not feel you could adequately present it to convince a judge, why do you feel that your case is legitimate in the first place?
Presumably, if your case was valid, then you wouldn't actually lose. If you do not believe in the merits of your own case, then obviously you do not sue That's the entire point.
How is there any risk if you have a legitimate case? The only reason a legitimate case would lose is if they didn't have the resources to adequately present their case, and if the loser pays, then this ceases to be an issue.
That it is not Linux's fault that games aren't compiled for it doesn't change the reality of that fact, or its consequences for otherwise would-be Linux users.
Nope, I haven't been pwned.... as I alluded, I admit to using a password that is formulaic, but I am the only one that knows the actual formula. Further, the formula is fuzzy, not exact.... the formula I use just gives me about 90% of my entire password, and I must still remember the remaining 10% or so.
With regards to point #2, does I matter if it is formulaic if not only does nobody else know the formula you use, but the formula cannot be reverse engineered from the password, almost like a one-way hash? even a very formulaic password can look random when you don't know the formula.
I would say "government paying rent" but then wheee let's all move to the Bay Area and watch private landowners charge the government as many digits of money as they can think to ask for.
For the government-paid rental units, it's pretty clear that the amount landlords would be able to demand would be a fixed amount calculated by the government to account for both the condition and location of the apartment building, and the amount of living space in the individual unit being paid for, and would only be allowed to increase directly with inflation. Any initial damage deposit would be the renter's responsibility, and would be a fixed function of monthly rent. A fixed percentage of the amount needed to pay the landlord is deducted from the basic income that the tenant otherwise receives.
Getting a ring off of a person also requires taking it past the first knuckle, which on many people will cause some level of discomfort as a ring is removed, although it can still definitely be done. However, there is no possible way to remove it without them noticing unless the subject's fingers are numb.
The only way even a very motivated hacker can get your pin code is if he can convince you or otherwise trick you into giving it to him. There is no foolproof way to convince people or trick people into doing what you want, however.
Pin is ultimately the most secure identification because it cannot be stolen, unlike any kind of physical object, and in the unfortunate event of a security breach, can be easily changed to mitigate future damages, unlike biometrics.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally, a rational response to my comment.
Far more sane than the others, which basically amount to "shut up and go away". Or, "I don't agree with you, therefore you are wrong".
So yes... the person in the right can still lose a case, but in general... this is not what happens, as long as both sides have had a fair hearing. I don't dispute that it does happen, only that there would be absolutely no reason for anyone to ever want to use the court system to pursue legal remedy when they felt unjustly wronged in the first place unless it represented the exception and not the general rule. Ask your husband if I am wrong about this.
You are right that justice is not perfect.... but that should not be an excuse for us to settle for a system that can be easily abused by people who happen to have more money than others. Instead, justice should be impartial to one's wealth, and the merits of their case alone should determine who is in the right. While this can be costly for the little guy who is found to be in wrong, even if their case may have appeared to have merit (perhaps only failing to have more merit than the opposing view), at least the bigger corporation that may have won will not have been able to use their economic advantage to win. Justice should apply equally to all.
Do you have any rationalization for that, or was that just a brief outburst of blind prejudice against philosophies that you may not happen to personally believe in?
If one did not believe the legal system to be fair or concerned with truth, there would be no reason to try and use the legal system to sue somebody wealthy in the first place either... the very thing that it is alleged that "loser pays" would discourage.
Does the fact that my notion may be idealistic mean that it is somehow less worthy of consideration?
The entire point of "loser pays" is to discourage people from suing somebody else when their claims are too weak to be sustainable, and to prevent rich corporations that may clearly be in the wrong from using the expense of the legal system to bankrupt a less wealthy opponent before they have had the opportunity to make their case.
Yes, you need a permit to have a garage sale, but unless you are running a business of holding garage sales, then as long as you are selling things for less than you paid for them, the sales are not reportable.
Barring judicial corruption, they only lose a so-called legitimate case when they have failed to prove their case.
And just why, exactly, do you think they would have failed to prove it? There are only two reasons that I know of: 1) they didn't have enough money or resources to spent on proving it, which is not an issue if loser pays; and 2) they didn't have a legitimate a case against them in the first place.
Only if you fail to prove it.
Why would you fail to prove it? Especially if you aren't paying if you win?
Actually no. You don't pay taxes on garage sale income as long as you are selling things for less money than the lesser of what the item is actually worth and what you paid for them.
The *ONLY* reason to believe that you would lose when you otherwise believe you have a legitimate case against somebody is if you actually doubt the legitimacy of your case in the first place... in which case you do not actually sue, which is the entire point.
Why would I lose, if my case were actually legitimate? If I doubted the legitimacy of my case, then obviously I wouldn't sue in the first place, which is the entire point of "loser pays".
Only if the little guy doesn't believe they actually have a legitimate case against the big corp in the first place.
If you believe you have a legitimate dispute, then why would you feel that you could not present it adequately to convince a judge, and obtain a ruling in your favor? And if you did not feel you could adequately present it to convince a judge, why do you feel that your case is legitimate in the first place?
Presumably, if your case was valid, then you wouldn't actually lose. If you do not believe in the merits of your own case, then obviously you do not sue That's the entire point.
How is there any risk if you have a legitimate case? The only reason a legitimate case would lose is if they didn't have the resources to adequately present their case, and if the loser pays, then this ceases to be an issue.
When did I suggest that I wasn't using a unique password? A formula can still have unknowns that determine the result.
That it is not Linux's fault that games aren't compiled for it doesn't change the reality of that fact, or its consequences for otherwise would-be Linux users.
Nope, I haven't been pwned.... as I alluded, I admit to using a password that is formulaic, but I am the only one that knows the actual formula. Further, the formula is fuzzy, not exact.... the formula I use just gives me about 90% of my entire password, and I must still remember the remaining 10% or so.
With regards to point #2, does I matter if it is formulaic if not only does nobody else know the formula you use, but the formula cannot be reverse engineered from the password, almost like a one-way hash? even a very formulaic password can look random when you don't know the formula.
This is true approximately in the same way that VHS killed the movie industry.
For the government-paid rental units, it's pretty clear that the amount landlords would be able to demand would be a fixed amount calculated by the government to account for both the condition and location of the apartment building, and the amount of living space in the individual unit being paid for, and would only be allowed to increase directly with inflation. Any initial damage deposit would be the renter's responsibility, and would be a fixed function of monthly rent. A fixed percentage of the amount needed to pay the landlord is deducted from the basic income that the tenant otherwise receives.
In a rich robot society, what are you alleging that a person could do that a robot could not?
.... is warranted or even recommended for use in fields where lives *literally* depend on the software operating correctly.
Getting a ring off of a person also requires taking it past the first knuckle, which on many people will cause some level of discomfort as a ring is removed, although it can still definitely be done. However, there is no possible way to remove it without them noticing unless the subject's fingers are numb.
The only way even a very motivated hacker can get your pin code is if he can convince you or otherwise trick you into giving it to him. There is no foolproof way to convince people or trick people into doing what you want, however.
Pin is ultimately the most secure identification because it cannot be stolen, unlike any kind of physical object, and in the unfortunate event of a security breach, can be easily changed to mitigate future damages, unlike biometrics.
where did I allege that I hated progress, exactly?