Yes, he and the company still have powerful influence over the department.
Again, I disagree. Here, the problem is that there are lots of lobbyist organizations and only one Department of Justice. The lobbyists routinely work at cross purposes because their clients have conflicting goals and strategies. That dilutes their power. The head of the DoJ doesn't have that dilution of power.
Why would you think they don't? The new person is no different, just another paid actor.
Even so, you are claiming that a powerful federal level office is weaker than one of many lobbying positions. It simply is not true. The lobbyist doesn't have day-to-day control of the DoJ. They don't have a huge labor force at their beck and call. They don't have routine face-to-face with the President. They don't have its huge budget.
And look at the story. The only reason Holder gets face time for saying something is because he used to be the Attorney General. If he were just another influential lobbyist, he wouldn't get the time of day.
The theory of making the plaintiff whole sets policy in a civil suit, it doesn't alter the facts.
I agree. We aren't and can't fully follow the "making one whole" theory however. And I consider that particularly relevant to the discussion of what happens when one destroys actual wealth (if only by making society a bit less efficient).
Ah, thank you! I always did love people who cop out with the 'simplistic' angle.
The thing is, that works here. Your argument up to a couple posts ago was that the people that you maybe disagreed with had opposing viewpoints merely because of a variety of mental biases and failures while continuing to not provide evidence or reasoning for your opinions. At least, we've gotten past that point.
Now you are comparing the thread to a dispute about desalinization where we are attempting, very hypothetically, to shout down dissent for practical alternatives to the Way We've Always Done This. I've seen that movie and it just doesn't apply. And the overly simplistic reasoning you present is part of the problem.
Why do you think Holder was weak as US Attorney General and not weak as yet another lobbyist?
Holder had no choice but to act in the interests his lobbyists.
He still operates under that restriction! He lobbies for his clients. And he doesn't have even a remote portion of the power and visibility he used to have as the US's top federal level law enforcement official. This whole argument of yours just doesn't make sense.
Otherwise you're just another dull keyboard warrior who doesn't understand the concepts of rule of law and of public property, i.e. property in which Government Inc. (one citizen, one share) has a legitimate ownership interest.
This sort of attitude is one reason I favor strongly reducing the existence and extent of public property - because it removes an excuse for you to meddle.
You prefer to believe a guy who would stand on the beach, and tell the crowd that because of the drought, water must be rationed, and you would be there all nodding approvingly and applauding. Anybody mentions desalinate or recycle, and he'll be shouted down as a simplistic lunatic
Note that you have yet to indicate that my hypothetical stance is wrong. If desalination and recycling of water is indeed so bad and realistic options for this situation (which let me remind you is highly dependent on pre-condtions that you have failed to say a thing about) that anyone who does propose them is a genuine simplistic lunatic, then I would in the right. So I could be wrong or right, but one can't tell from the simplistic and contrived scenario you set up.
Are you so unaware of precedence and history (all 6000 years of it)?
Of course not. And I would point out that analogous positions to the US Attorney General (such as a head of secret police or a national level law officer) have usually had considerable power while that of courtiers did not. The former could put you to death while the latter merely had opportunity for personal or familial profit.
Yes, the position may be more powerful, but it is under the 'leadership' of weak men/women for a reason.
Why do you think Holder was weak as US Attorney General and not weak as yet another lobbyist?
Ok, so there are even more possibilities for you to not succeed on the free market.
Of course not. I refer instead to the satisfying of wants. You won't fail to buy and eat a hamburger because khallow outcompeted you for your hunger or the money in your pocket.
I guess the bottom line is that there are a variety of harms you can't make whole just by paying money or other restitution, such as death. It's not possible to spend money to reverse someone's death and make them whole (that is, put them back in the position they were in before the harm occurred). So by that legal theory, human life has value that can't be quantified with money. But in practice, we don't act like our lives have infinite value.
Do you decide to work more or less of your life, or to work riskier or less risky jobs because of the legal theory of making someone whole? And there are a host of risky activities done merely for the thrills, like sky diving or skiing.
In the newspapers... I really don't care what you believe. I will not argue with the faithful.
Once again, no evidence is provided for your assertions, including the new but empty assertion that I am part of "the faithful". Just in this thread, I counted 17 such condescending yet empty replies. Don't you have something better to do with your time?
Come on, name all the people you know that use at least one of those sites.
So what?
Most people would flip their shit if they fell over.
Over Twitter and Facebook? That kind of person probably flips their shit over bedsheets not folded the right way. I would wager that at least half the US wouldn't even notice.
So you have no power, no water, no gas, cell towers are overloaded and twitter and facebook is down so you can't get any news.
Don't forget the space goats with space AIDS. We have much hysteria to do.
Pretty much everything we've built in the past few decades is bricked.
At least, till they send some dude out into the field to power cycle the webcam.
If the capping inversion layer or "cap" is too strong (too close to the surface), it will prevent thunderstorms from developing.
Perhaps the soot is increasing the effect of the capping inversion? But I'm sure it's just more scientists so colossally ignorant that they failed to check Slashdot first.
Sure, if you choose to ignore the sociopathic desire for wealth/power and the kind of people these positions draw.
So what? Merely having sociopathic desire for wealth and power, which really is normal behavior for anyone who actually can achieve wealth and power, doesn't imply that one is running the Department of Justice.
You are just illustrating the power of faith..
Says the person who has yet to provide even a shred of evidence in support of their assertions. Here's my reasoning, we are comparing a person actually running the Department of Justice, with full control of day to day activities (including the FBI which is the largest and most powerful federal-level law enforcement organization) and considerable power both as themselves and as an officer who reports directly to the US President, who has access to a variety of top secret info, and a very considerable staff, is somehow less influential than their reincarnation as yet another lobbyist, admittedly one who probably has some manpower for making copies and keeping the schedule straight with a great travel and entertainment budget? I don't buy it.
Slashdot Mirror
Was the design spec "get payload to correct orbit safely" or was it "get payload to orbit with zero subsystem failures"?
Yes.
Yes, he and the company still have powerful influence over the department.
Again, I disagree. Here, the problem is that there are lots of lobbyist organizations and only one Department of Justice. The lobbyists routinely work at cross purposes because their clients have conflicting goals and strategies. That dilutes their power. The head of the DoJ doesn't have that dilution of power.
Why would you think they don't? The new person is no different, just another paid actor.
Even so, you are claiming that a powerful federal level office is weaker than one of many lobbying positions. It simply is not true. The lobbyist doesn't have day-to-day control of the DoJ. They don't have a huge labor force at their beck and call. They don't have routine face-to-face with the President. They don't have its huge budget.
And look at the story. The only reason Holder gets face time for saying something is because he used to be the Attorney General. If he were just another influential lobbyist, he wouldn't get the time of day.
The theory of making the plaintiff whole sets policy in a civil suit, it doesn't alter the facts.
I agree. We aren't and can't fully follow the "making one whole" theory however. And I consider that particularly relevant to the discussion of what happens when one destroys actual wealth (if only by making society a bit less efficient).
Ah, thank you! I always did love people who cop out with the 'simplistic' angle.
The thing is, that works here. Your argument up to a couple posts ago was that the people that you maybe disagreed with had opposing viewpoints merely because of a variety of mental biases and failures while continuing to not provide evidence or reasoning for your opinions. At least, we've gotten past that point.
Now you are comparing the thread to a dispute about desalinization where we are attempting, very hypothetically, to shout down dissent for practical alternatives to the Way We've Always Done This. I've seen that movie and it just doesn't apply. And the overly simplistic reasoning you present is part of the problem.
Why do you think Holder was weak as US Attorney General and not weak as yet another lobbyist?
Holder had no choice but to act in the interests his lobbyists.
He still operates under that restriction! He lobbies for his clients. And he doesn't have even a remote portion of the power and visibility he used to have as the US's top federal level law enforcement official. This whole argument of yours just doesn't make sense.
In practice, they sometimes can't be repaid, but loss of life cannot be properly compensated even in theory.
Unless you're not following that legal theory. And "practice" is what you are actually doing.
Otherwise you're just another dull keyboard warrior who doesn't understand the concepts of rule of law and of public property, i.e. property in which Government Inc. (one citizen, one share) has a legitimate ownership interest.
This sort of attitude is one reason I favor strongly reducing the existence and extent of public property - because it removes an excuse for you to meddle.
Where is this "need" you speak of? I don't "need" Uber to follow bad law.
However, that doesn't make the comparison of financial loss to loss of life correct or proper since the loss of life also carries an irreparable harm.
Huge financial losses are also irreparable.
You prefer to believe a guy who would stand on the beach, and tell the crowd that because of the drought, water must be rationed, and you would be there all nodding approvingly and applauding. Anybody mentions desalinate or recycle, and he'll be shouted down as a simplistic lunatic
Note that you have yet to indicate that my hypothetical stance is wrong. If desalination and recycling of water is indeed so bad and realistic options for this situation (which let me remind you is highly dependent on pre-condtions that you have failed to say a thing about) that anyone who does propose them is a genuine simplistic lunatic, then I would in the right. So I could be wrong or right, but one can't tell from the simplistic and contrived scenario you set up.
Are you so unaware of precedence and history (all 6000 years of it)?
Of course not. And I would point out that analogous positions to the US Attorney General (such as a head of secret police or a national level law officer) have usually had considerable power while that of courtiers did not. The former could put you to death while the latter merely had opportunity for personal or familial profit.
Yes, the position may be more powerful, but it is under the 'leadership' of weak men/women for a reason.
Why do you think Holder was weak as US Attorney General and not weak as yet another lobbyist?
Ok, so there are even more possibilities for you to not succeed on the free market.
Of course not. I refer instead to the satisfying of wants. You won't fail to buy and eat a hamburger because khallow outcompeted you for your hunger or the money in your pocket.
And my point is that the scenario does not.
If you refuse to see what's in front of you
What's in front of me? This sounds like another pointless evangelist Christian sell. I disagree only because I'm ignoring God's voice or something.
I guess the bottom line is that there are a variety of harms you can't make whole just by paying money or other restitution, such as death. It's not possible to spend money to reverse someone's death and make them whole (that is, put them back in the position they were in before the harm occurred). So by that legal theory, human life has value that can't be quantified with money. But in practice, we don't act like our lives have infinite value.
Do you decide to work more or less of your life, or to work riskier or less risky jobs because of the legal theory of making someone whole? And there are a host of risky activities done merely for the thrills, like sky diving or skiing.
Do you also reject the free market, because of the remote possibility you might lose in all that competition?
Competition isn't the only game in free markets.
For me, the reason I'm anti-dictatorship is the remote possibility that I might not get to be the dictator.
In the newspapers... I really don't care what you believe. I will not argue with the faithful.
Once again, no evidence is provided for your assertions, including the new but empty assertion that I am part of "the faithful". Just in this thread, I counted 17 such condescending yet empty replies. Don't you have something better to do with your time?
I said "crap" not "words".
Only if you throw out the legal theory of making someone whole.
Which is a sensible thing to do here. After all, most decisions which harm people are made by people concerning their own health and safety.
ut hey, if you want to continue to demonstrate your ignorance, I'm here for you!
I'm not the one (or perhaps it's more than one?) posting a page full of crap every time.
Come on, name all the people you know that use at least one of those sites.
So what?
Most people would flip their shit if they fell over.
Over Twitter and Facebook? That kind of person probably flips their shit over bedsheets not folded the right way. I would wager that at least half the US wouldn't even notice.
So you have no power, no water, no gas, cell towers are overloaded and twitter and facebook is down so you can't get any news.
Don't forget the space goats with space AIDS. We have much hysteria to do.
Pretty much everything we've built in the past few decades is bricked.
At least, till they send some dude out into the field to power cycle the webcam.
If the capping inversion layer or "cap" is too strong (too close to the surface), it will prevent thunderstorms from developing.
Perhaps the soot is increasing the effect of the capping inversion? But I'm sure it's just more scientists so colossally ignorant that they failed to check Slashdot first.
Sure, if you choose to ignore the sociopathic desire for wealth/power and the kind of people these positions draw.
So what? Merely having sociopathic desire for wealth and power, which really is normal behavior for anyone who actually can achieve wealth and power, doesn't imply that one is running the Department of Justice.
You are just illustrating the power of faith..
Says the person who has yet to provide even a shred of evidence in support of their assertions. Here's my reasoning, we are comparing a person actually running the Department of Justice, with full control of day to day activities (including the FBI which is the largest and most powerful federal-level law enforcement organization) and considerable power both as themselves and as an officer who reports directly to the US President, who has access to a variety of top secret info, and a very considerable staff, is somehow less influential than their reincarnation as yet another lobbyist, admittedly one who probably has some manpower for making copies and keeping the schedule straight with a great travel and entertainment budget? I don't buy it.
Yes, well, since he serves the lobbyist
Sorry, I'm not willing to take your word for it. I'm not willing to merely assume that there are "events". Where's your evidence?
Universal statements, even those preceded by weasel phrases, are disproved by counterexamples.