I would rather know the company had to pay out for its transgressions then let them get away with it, even if I do not get the money.
That means you are paying extra for services so that ambulance-chasing lawyers can get rich. Ever read those stupid labels that tells you not to do things with a product that any idiot would know is dangerous? Yea, you pay for that, too. Companies know they have to pay off these shysters, and they'll come after them looking for a payoff whether the company or their product or service was really at fault or not.
You like the GP are a moron.
Not everyone impacted can take the day off to go to small claims court. A class action is to punish the company while not over burdoning the members of the class as their each individual claim is very small.
Great, so instead of getting screwed once by a company, you should get screwed by the company twice and again by a bunch of lawyers. That makes perfect sense.
How about if you can't be bothered stand up for yourself, eventually other people will get tired of helping you up out of the dirt. You probably would have learned this lesson already if your mommy had kicked you out of the basement before you turned 30.
There was a recent Supreme court case that made this legal.
Good. Class action lawsuits are nothing but a wealth stockpiling program for the 1%'ers that went to law school instead of Harvard Business. It doesn't help the consumer "class" that gets nothing but a coupon, while the lawyers make millions.
You're better off in small claims court. That's what I do whenever I get one of these "you may be part of this class" letters. I immediately send a letter requesting to be left out of the class, and file in small claims if I think it's worth it. It's way better than getting one of those "settlement" packages with dollar-off coupons or a check for $2.34. Especially when I know the lawyers got $234 million for their "work".
In Columbus' day (and for hundred of years after) people's lives weren't worth much.
And today, each human resource has an estimated lifetime value of about $9.1 million. They still belong to the state, but at least they have figured out their value now.
In my opinion, the best way to combat it is to let it happen, because that way you create the most content possible. Then you use a review process to improve the content. Actually this is pretty much what Wikipedia does, it seems to work out okay for them.
Actually, according to this study, that doesn't work out for them at all. They mention that articles with a bias tend to keep that bias - it remains across many revisions. They only found some balance because other articles with bias in the other direction were also found.
But that raises another question, which they don't address: How much bias is the average reader subjected to if they don't hunt around for obscure, related topics. That is, if the main article for a topic is one read by, say, 1,000,000 people, and there are articles that balance out the viewpoint but are only read by 1,500 people, then the public in general is getting a very slanted view of the topic.
And exactly one of "Gay Marriage, Abortion, Climate Change, Conservative/Liberal" is a physics problem subject to rigorous empirical validation independent of human opinion.
True, but people worked out the correct physical parameters, tools, and techniques for extracting unborn fetuses a long time ago.
What the heck are "hierarchical individualists"? I would've thought that "individualists" wouldn't take naturally to a "hierarchy".... So a "hierarchical individualist" is an oxymoron... or maybe just a moron.
I think they mean "Individualist" = libertarian, "hierarchical individualist" = Neocon
Religion / spirituality doesn't speak to science. The set of questions that science can answer are not within the same realm. And while there have been plenty of establishment religious "leaders", especially in the Dark Ages, that expressed animosity to scientific ideas, that was about authority and power of the institution, not the religious teachings themselves.
I really don't understand the delight that some people take in attacking religion. People have found spiritual enlightenment for themselves and taught others techniques for achieving it themselves, and this has produced tremendous benefits to people for millions of years. Yes, it's been used as an excuse to enslave and torture people, too. Anything with such a powerful influence on a population will be used by tyrants for their own purposes. But that seems to be the only thing some people want to acknowledge.
Yea, that's great, we're getting better at understanding evolution. Okay. Nice. Why use that to try to tear down someone's beliefs? Studying evolution isn't going to help anyone get over the loss of a child or family member, and it's not going to help them find satisfaction in helping to feed and clothe the starving or serving mankind in other ways.
Why what? Why are we here? Evolution. If you're asking for the greater purpose in life, there is none. Our lives are meaningless to everyone and everything in the universe except for each of us.
Congratulations! You just failed self-actualization.
I often wonder who the target reader is for such an article
It's all the people with budgets at all the companies and organizations that got a PR mention in the article, that's who. Like most of the media today, these guys are just doing marketing, they are not involved in "informing" anyone about anything.
It was the 9th Circuit that upheld the retroactive immunity, not SCOTUS.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the mistaken impression that SCOTUS was over the 9th Circuit and had the ability to review their cases. My bad.
Often with contentious issues, the Supreme court will wait for a case that suits well for making a clear precedent that lower courts can follow without splitting hairs over minutia. Witness, for example, Sackett v. EPA. There were many previous cases challenging the exact same implementation of law that the Sackett case addressed, but the court declined to review. But with Sackett, SCOTUS was able to create a bright line and clear guidance.
That's not a bad justification. Unfortunately, because Congress has addressed the issue and SCOTUS has ruled on it, in this case it is also an expansion of federal power that tramples on the separation of powers, and ultimately erodes the rule of law.
Not that I agree with these decisions - MJ prohibition is seriously flawed for many reasons, especially with the Federal government claiming police powers that should belong solely to the states. But many people, especially those in power in Washington, don't concern themselves much with following the law unless it suits their purposes.
Since SCOTUS has failed to defend the people and the states on this issue, it falls to the states to nullify, as described by Jefferson in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, and used by several states to oppose slavery before the civil war.
Exactly. If he wanted to reject those provisions, he could've appealed to a court literally the minute he signed it. It's not as if he didn't have the text before it passed.
What a show. Nobody seems to have heard that those provisions, ensuring that they applied to US citizens, were included at the request of the White House.
That's not a difficult place at all, and entirely within his powers as the chief law enforcement officer in the country. He has the power to set priorities for federal law enforcement, including priorities of zero.
He also fails to uphold the Constitution by doing so, a clear violation of his oath of office. There is no wiggle room here, from Article II:
he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed
To be fair, the only provision that you mention that the SCOTUS has upheld was the "material support" provision. It was the 9th Circuit that upheld the retroactive immunity, not SCOTUS.
Most of the other Patriot Act and FISA laws get dropped by the government when they get to court. They know, for instance, that courts are not going to uphold a law that prevents people from talking about secret warrants, so they bow out instead.
The fact that people don't know that represents a significant failure on the part of the education system.
Actually, I hear this rote repeated incessantly, so I have to assume the state education system is performing its job of dumbing down the populace and eliminating any remnant of critical thinking among its products has been a resounding success.
The proof is quite clear, in that there is no one that can discern the difference between arguing the existence of god and the existence of pink unicorns. They are both entirely unrelated philosophical arguments, and the fact that so few people seem to be able to make that leap is evidence of the success of the state's indoctrination system.
Note that the media has stubbornly refused to cover ANY of his campaign in the last few weeks.
It's not stubborn. It's because the race is over, whether the Paul supporters realize it or not.
I didn't hear the fat lady singing - maybe you're just buying all the tripe the MSM has been shoveling at you.
From Jesse Benton:
Let me be very clear. Dr. Paul is NOT dropping out or suspending his campaign.
So while our campaign is no longer investing in the remaining primary states, we will continue to run strong programs at District and State Conventions to win more delegates and alternate delegates to the National Convention.
To this end, our campaign has several positive and realistic goals:
1) Having recently WON Maine, we believe we can win several more states.
2) We will win party leadership positions at both the state and national levels.
3) We will continue to grow our already substantial total of delegates.
We will head to Tampa with a solid group of delegates. Several hundred will be bound to Dr. Paul, and several hundred more, although bound to Governor Romney or other candidates, will be Ron Paul supporters.
Unfortunately, barring something very unforeseen, our delegate total will not be strong enough to win the nomination. Governor Romney is now within 200 delegates of securing the party’s nod. However, our delegates can still make a major impact at the National Convention and beyond.
All delegates will be able to vote on party rules and allow us to shape the process for future liberty candidates.
We are in an excellent position to make sure the Republican Party adds solid liberty issues to the GOP Platform, which our delegates will be directly positioned to approve. Our campaign is presently working to get several items up for consideration, including monetary policy reform, prohibitions on indefinite detention, and Internet freedom.
You've used a rather long-winded (and sophomoric) route to say "You're stupid or a shill if you don't agree with me." And in addition to your side-tracking of the entire issue, you have made a number of leaps of faith.
Note too that your argument is mostly a straw man, building a case claiming that I am "keen on trying to disprove something", which of course I'm not. There are questions of the proportion of contribution that we have control over, and some very serious unknowns regarding the effects of radiative forcing, and those questions should be answered as best we can, not censored by those with a political agenda.
But of course your most egregious leap was this:
the majority of climate scientists... [are]... worried about possible outcomes, some of which are quite dire (historical and archeological evidence says that climate change is not good for civilization) and changes to the nature of the economy now are favored tools.
It's no wonder you favor any opposing ideas to be censored, because there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about implementing a globally-controlled command economy upon the peoples of the world. Your premise for justifying this radical course is that the worst-case probabilities predicted by the IPCC and others should be accepted as inevitable, and that there is enough known and controllable about the climate that there is a reliable way to avoid these dire outcomes. That's a terribly flawed premise. It also ignores what we already know from history about the implementations of these "changes to the nature of the economy" which your ideology favors, and that's the truly dire amount of suffering and death that always results, always suffered by the most vulnerable populations.
What is very clearly known is that climate change happens on earth, and regardless of humankind's contributions to the current warming trends, there are changes to the climate, often rapid, that are entirely out of our control at anything close to our level of technology. The only truly moral course of action in these circumstances is not a global oligarchy in control of earth's resources, but rather reasonable steps to ensure that everyone is prepared and able to adapt to the changes.
Slashdot Mirror
Evacuating the Earth is a fantasy even more remote from reality than the most extreme environmentalist solutions.
Well you're right that killing 90% of the earth's human population would be easier than colonizing space, but probably not as popular.
The funny part of your rant is that you think Obama is somehow different than Romney and Bush.
I would rather know the company had to pay out for its transgressions then let them get away with it, even if I do not get the money.
That means you are paying extra for services so that ambulance-chasing lawyers can get rich. Ever read those stupid labels that tells you not to do things with a product that any idiot would know is dangerous? Yea, you pay for that, too. Companies know they have to pay off these shysters, and they'll come after them looking for a payoff whether the company or their product or service was really at fault or not.
So you're part of the problem.
Perhaps I can help you out as far as the American citizen. He may be referring to Anwar al-Awlaki.
Yes, and of course his son
You like the GP are a moron. Not everyone impacted can take the day off to go to small claims court. A class action is to punish the company while not over burdoning the members of the class as their each individual claim is very small.
Great, so instead of getting screwed once by a company, you should get screwed by the company twice and again by a bunch of lawyers. That makes perfect sense.
How about if you can't be bothered stand up for yourself, eventually other people will get tired of helping you up out of the dirt. You probably would have learned this lesson already if your mommy had kicked you out of the basement before you turned 30.
There was a recent Supreme court case that made this legal.
Good. Class action lawsuits are nothing but a wealth stockpiling program for the 1%'ers that went to law school instead of Harvard Business. It doesn't help the consumer "class" that gets nothing but a coupon, while the lawyers make millions.
You're better off in small claims court. That's what I do whenever I get one of these "you may be part of this class" letters. I immediately send a letter requesting to be left out of the class, and file in small claims if I think it's worth it. It's way better than getting one of those "settlement" packages with dollar-off coupons or a check for $2.34. Especially when I know the lawyers got $234 million for their "work".
In Columbus' day (and for hundred of years after) people's lives weren't worth much.
And today, each human resource has an estimated lifetime value of about $9.1 million. They still belong to the state, but at least they have figured out their value now.
... the Intelsat contract represents the true dawn of the commercial space age.
That's right, folks, it's Morning in America!
In my opinion, the best way to combat it is to let it happen, because that way you create the most content possible. Then you use a review process to improve the content. Actually this is pretty much what Wikipedia does, it seems to work out okay for them.
Actually, according to this study, that doesn't work out for them at all. They mention that articles with a bias tend to keep that bias - it remains across many revisions. They only found some balance because other articles with bias in the other direction were also found.
But that raises another question, which they don't address: How much bias is the average reader subjected to if they don't hunt around for obscure, related topics. That is, if the main article for a topic is one read by, say, 1,000,000 people, and there are articles that balance out the viewpoint but are only read by 1,500 people, then the public in general is getting a very slanted view of the topic.
And exactly one of "Gay Marriage, Abortion, Climate Change, Conservative/Liberal" is a physics problem subject to rigorous empirical validation independent of human opinion.
True, but people worked out the correct physical parameters, tools, and techniques for extracting unborn fetuses a long time ago.
What the heck are "hierarchical individualists"? I would've thought that "individualists" wouldn't take naturally to a "hierarchy". ... So a "hierarchical individualist" is an oxymoron... or maybe just a moron.
I think they mean "Individualist" = libertarian, "hierarchical individualist" = Neocon
Just another scientific study that simply confirms what everybody already knows is true.
And that still doesn't speak to science.
Religion / spirituality doesn't speak to science. The set of questions that science can answer are not within the same realm. And while there have been plenty of establishment religious "leaders", especially in the Dark Ages, that expressed animosity to scientific ideas, that was about authority and power of the institution, not the religious teachings themselves.
I really don't understand the delight that some people take in attacking religion. People have found spiritual enlightenment for themselves and taught others techniques for achieving it themselves, and this has produced tremendous benefits to people for millions of years. Yes, it's been used as an excuse to enslave and torture people, too. Anything with such a powerful influence on a population will be used by tyrants for their own purposes. But that seems to be the only thing some people want to acknowledge.
Yea, that's great, we're getting better at understanding evolution. Okay. Nice. Why use that to try to tear down someone's beliefs? Studying evolution isn't going to help anyone get over the loss of a child or family member, and it's not going to help them find satisfaction in helping to feed and clothe the starving or serving mankind in other ways.
Why what? Why are we here? Evolution. If you're asking for the greater purpose in life, there is none. Our lives are meaningless to everyone and everything in the universe except for each of us.
Congratulations! You just failed self-actualization.
I often wonder who the target reader is for such an article
It's all the people with budgets at all the companies and organizations that got a PR mention in the article, that's who. Like most of the media today, these guys are just doing marketing, they are not involved in "informing" anyone about anything.
It was the 9th Circuit that upheld the retroactive immunity, not SCOTUS.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the mistaken impression that SCOTUS was over the 9th Circuit and had the ability to review their cases. My bad.
Often with contentious issues, the Supreme court will wait for a case that suits well for making a clear precedent that lower courts can follow without splitting hairs over minutia. Witness, for example, Sackett v. EPA. There were many previous cases challenging the exact same implementation of law that the Sackett case addressed, but the court declined to review. But with Sackett, SCOTUS was able to create a bright line and clear guidance.
That's not a bad justification. Unfortunately, because Congress has addressed the issue and SCOTUS has ruled on it, in this case it is also an expansion of federal power that tramples on the separation of powers, and ultimately erodes the rule of law.
Not that I agree with these decisions - MJ prohibition is seriously flawed for many reasons, especially with the Federal government claiming police powers that should belong solely to the states. But many people, especially those in power in Washington, don't concern themselves much with following the law unless it suits their purposes.
Since SCOTUS has failed to defend the people and the states on this issue, it falls to the states to nullify, as described by Jefferson in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, and used by several states to oppose slavery before the civil war.
Exactly. If he wanted to reject those provisions, he could've appealed to a court literally the minute he signed it. It's not as if he didn't have the text before it passed.
What a show. Nobody seems to have heard that those provisions, ensuring that they applied to US citizens, were included at the request of the White House.
That's not a difficult place at all, and entirely within his powers as the chief law enforcement officer in the country. He has the power to set priorities for federal law enforcement, including priorities of zero.
He also fails to uphold the Constitution by doing so, a clear violation of his oath of office. There is no wiggle room here, from Article II:
To be fair, the only provision that you mention that the SCOTUS has upheld was the "material support" provision. It was the 9th Circuit that upheld the retroactive immunity, not SCOTUS.
Most of the other Patriot Act and FISA laws get dropped by the government when they get to court. They know, for instance, that courts are not going to uphold a law that prevents people from talking about secret warrants, so they bow out instead.
The fact that people don't know that represents a significant failure on the part of the education system.
Actually, I hear this rote repeated incessantly, so I have to assume the state education system is performing its job of dumbing down the populace and eliminating any remnant of critical thinking among its products has been a resounding success.
The proof is quite clear, in that there is no one that can discern the difference between arguing the existence of god and the existence of pink unicorns. They are both entirely unrelated philosophical arguments, and the fact that so few people seem to be able to make that leap is evidence of the success of the state's indoctrination system.
Note that the media has stubbornly refused to cover ANY of his campaign in the last few weeks.
It's not stubborn. It's because the race is over, whether the Paul supporters realize it or not.
I didn't hear the fat lady singing - maybe you're just buying all the tripe the MSM has been shoveling at you.
From Jesse Benton:
See you in Tampa!
You've used a rather long-winded (and sophomoric) route to say "You're stupid or a shill if you don't agree with me." And in addition to your side-tracking of the entire issue, you have made a number of leaps of faith.
Note too that your argument is mostly a straw man, building a case claiming that I am "keen on trying to disprove something", which of course I'm not. There are questions of the proportion of contribution that we have control over, and some very serious unknowns regarding the effects of radiative forcing, and those questions should be answered as best we can, not censored by those with a political agenda.
But of course your most egregious leap was this:
the majority of climate scientists ... [are] ... worried about possible outcomes, some of which are quite dire (historical and archeological evidence says that climate change is not good for civilization) and changes to the nature of the economy now are favored tools.
It's no wonder you favor any opposing ideas to be censored, because there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about implementing a globally-controlled command economy upon the peoples of the world. Your premise for justifying this radical course is that the worst-case probabilities predicted by the IPCC and others should be accepted as inevitable, and that there is enough known and controllable about the climate that there is a reliable way to avoid these dire outcomes. That's a terribly flawed premise. It also ignores what we already know from history about the implementations of these "changes to the nature of the economy" which your ideology favors, and that's the truly dire amount of suffering and death that always results, always suffered by the most vulnerable populations.
What is very clearly known is that climate change happens on earth, and regardless of humankind's contributions to the current warming trends, there are changes to the climate, often rapid, that are entirely out of our control at anything close to our level of technology. The only truly moral course of action in these circumstances is not a global oligarchy in control of earth's resources, but rather reasonable steps to ensure that everyone is prepared and able to adapt to the changes.
Hard to recall seeing a /. headline that got the story so wrong.
See you in Tampa!
You are quite simply wrong. Paul has run as the Libertarian presidential candidate many times.
Uh, no, just once. As cpu6502 pointed out.
Check your facts next time.
Check your own. I'll even help you out..