Every time someone attacks the court system in the US, they take approximately 1/1000th of the cases ever filed in the US and cite those as proof of the brokenness of the system. You do that now. Our system works, but the media doesn't report the cases that come out rightly; they only report those that come out wrongly. Remember, you can't bitch about a system that works, and you can't sell papers when the system works.
But that isn't the case; the loser pays a suitable amount, determined by the court, that constitutes a penalty for not having a (provable) case.
But the loser doesn't always have an unprovable case. He just has a weaker case than his opponent for whatever reason. Loser-pays is not a solution to "rich guy always wins"; in fact, it would perpetuate the system because poor guy would never ever sue someone richer than him.
SCO is another poster child for the US Civil Court system to adopt a "Loser Pays" rule to interrupt the flow of ridiculous lawsuits.
"Loser pays" is a horrible system. Small companies and individuals would never sue big corporations for fear of losing (even if their suit was valid) unless the case was a slam dunk. Furthermore, big corporations could sue whomever they want, and the defendants would settle really fast, for fear of going to court and losing and having to pay the corporation's immense, million-plus dollar legal fees.
We already have a system where, if the lawsuit is frivolous or malicious, the instigator has to pay. You just don't hear about that because the media only reports on failings of our court system.
I would assume that this may conflict heavily with the current "Lawyers Always Win" effect we have now though.
If you change the system, lawyers will still win, because their skills are needed in court battles. I tell you what: next time you go into court, since you hate lawyers so much, don't hire one. We'll see how far that gets you.
I'm saying it is impossible to not believe in something. In tandem, God does not have to enter the equation. The reason "religion" has been redefined to be more a synonym for "worldview" or "philosophy" (which is what I'm saying is virtually impossible to not "have") is because, if we used the old definition requiring a belief concerning God, then many world religions are not religions. Take Buddhism as an example -- it's a non-theistic religion.
But in any case, we're just arguing semantics here now, so I'll agree to disagree with you. You and all the others were very fair in your discussion.
To simplify things and, in doing so, to complicate things, the Supreme Court disagrees with you in certain situations. For one, see Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991):
willfullness... requires the Government to prove that the defendant knew of this duty [i.e. the illegality of the action]
For another, see Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994).
"willfullness"... require[s]... a "purpose to disobey the law."
The Model Penal Code also says
there is some tendency on the part of legislatures and courts to provide for limited defenses of ignorance or mistake of law, even when that mistake or ignorance does not logically indicate the absense of the state of mind [emphasis added]
Most statutes require both an actus reus and a mens rea to convict. The mens rea is a state of mind required. The Supreme Court has frequently had to rule on whether this mens rea is necessary or not (it seems ridiculous under any theory of criminal punishment to punish someone for a crime which they did not know they were committing). Perhaps despite our prejudices against her, in this case, Dunn truly was mistaken.
Atheism is a religion like not collecting postage stamps is a hobby.
As snappy as that might sound, it's a horrible analogy.
The definition of "hobby" hovers around "an auxiliary activity" or a "spare-time recreational pursuit" which specifically requires a conscious action or inaction. If someone actively decided that their hobby was to "not collect stamps", then I would argue that their hobby was indeed "not collecting stamps". However, religion requires a belief in something, and it is impossible to have no beliefs. Wikipedia lists as one of the synonyms as "belief system". I would argue that rejecting the existence of God (or, for that matter, rejecting any belief held by a large portion of society) requires a belief system which will get you, through reasoning, to that rejection. Thus, unless the atheist has never pondered the question of religion, the atheist possesses a belief system which will lead them to a disbelief in God. Therefore, because the atheist has a belief system, the atheist has a religion.
I hesitate to go so far in a meager/. comment to state that all humans necessarily prescribe to a religion, but it sure does seem that under the modern definition of religion that it is virtually impossible to be areligious.
I'll concede that. It's just that GGP's post is only true if the statement "all atheists have no religion" is true. However, another day I may want to argue that it is impossible to not have a religion, as it seems the modern definition of "religion" is "belief system about man's relationship with the universe".
Sorry about posting on an unrelated thread, but the "reply to article" button is missing from my interface.
Take GPS and a PDA to track where you went. It's quite fun to look back later and see your footsteps and be able to put photos with your location on a map.
And religions being what they are.. like to fight amongst themselves.
Considering that the atheist crowd likes to throw their hat in the ring too
Except that atheism is a religion, too. You don't have to believe a God exists to have a religion. See, for example, some forms of Buddhism and Hinduism.
Abusers of their system are downloasing [sic] around 200-250 Gigs a month... If you purchase 2 HD-DVD videos from Amazon and download them then you are already violating AUP/TOS with Comcast.
Did you just claim that one video from Amazon Unbox is around 100GB in size?
Hum. That's pretty damn intuitive. However, it's better than the alternative: doing a time sync with microsoft.com still gives me the wrong time, and I can't sync with time.nist.gov right now. They must be having problems, too.
Actually, it's still considered a vegetable when talking about tarriffs. The Supreme Court Case Nix v. Hedden decided that and has never been overruled; according to Westlaw (can't link to you since it's a paid service), it's still good law.
Here are a few summary pieces from the Westlaw headnotes:
Tomatoes are vegetables, rather than fruits, in the common and popular acceptation of such words, and were not free of duty under the provision of the free list for fruits, green, ripe, or dried, but were dutiable at 10 per cent. ad valorem, under the provision in Schedule G of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 503, for vegetables in their natural state.
It's a pretty ridiculous ruling, as the court says things like this:
The passages cited from the dictionaries define the word fruit as the seed of plaints, or that part of plaints which contains the seed, and especially the juicy, pulpy products of certain plants, covering and containing the seed. These definitions have no tendency to show that tomatoes are fruit, as distinguished from vegetables, in common speech, or within the meaning of the tariff act.
My favorite part is the justification about how the people think it's a vegetable because of when they eat it:
in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert
I might add that this reasoning doesn't work anymore, since a lot of people consume fruits with their meal (orange juice, strawberries in cereal, bananas in packed lunches, canned peaches, etc.).
The court then goes on to talk about beans, and how they are used as vegetables even though they are not vegetables. I have to wonder what the court would have thought of the sweet bean, which is eaten as a dessert in Japan. Would they have ruled that this bean is a fruit?
That's not orwellian. Anyone can do what they want... we don't even stop people fighting each other provided nobody else is involved and it's only fists (any sight of a knife and the police are there usually in under 30 seconds.. no guns here so it's not an issue). Stuff happens when people are drunk.. it's no big deal.
It's all about two things - protection - everyone has a right to go out and enjoy themselves without nutters getting in the way and trying to mug them or something - and perception - even though the city is *very* safe at night it's good to have people in high-vis wandering around because people feel safer, and they enjoy themselves more.
It doesn't matter if right now the government is your friend. History repeatedly shows that governments will betray their citizenry and it's only a matter of time until they try to betray you, my friend. Complacency only emboldens the totalitarians among your elected officials.
For example, see the discussion above about police and their relationships with different races in the US. The government is never your friend: Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Hitler. McCarthy. Hell, we can see the Bush Administration heading down this path right now.
So 30 seconds after a knife gets pulled the police show up? What happens when you say something the government doesn't want you to say? 30 seconds after you start, you're being hauled off to a reeducation camp?
I think that in the American understanding of left-right politics, anarchists would be all the way on the right, beyond even libertarians (again, the US system thinks of libertarians as right instead of left).
Oh Lord, I have not laughed so hard in days! You, sir, deserve a medal. And while we're at it, have you been in an automobile accident lately? Have you been hospitalized because of a problem at work?
This is related to the difference between American and Japanese media in general. If you read Japanese comics, you'll notice the production values are lower. Now, I don't mean the artist-related costs; manga are primarily black and white and run in huge weekly tomes containing bits of lots of manga universes by different artists. Then, the creator is the famous one, not the manga itself. So when a story ends, the creator has a fanbase instead of the story itself. The creator then begins a new manga, and has tons of people reading. In the US, there are a ton of comic creators who are unknow while their comics are still famous. I have read [insert qualifier here, such as "astonishing"] X-Men, but I'd be hard pressed to name more than five people who have worked on X-Men, and then only one am I absolutely sure ever had a hand in the comics is Stan Lee. With the exception of a few names (Gaiman, Stan Lee, Miller), the emphasis is on the character and not on the creator.
Japanese television is the same way. While we Americans have an abundance of shows that run nearly 10 seasons (Cheers, Friends, Seinfeld, Family Matters, etc., etc., etc.), Japanese TV shows (sitcoms and such) typically run 13 weekly episodes and then they're over. The emphasis is on the actor and broadcaster instead of on the story, as far as marketing goes. "Oda Yuuji has a new drama out!" Casts also tend to be smaller in Japan (again with the lower production values so there isn't as much of an investment in a show which will end in 4 mos. time).
In Japan, everything serialized (with a few exceptions, such as Dragon Ball and Ranma 1/2) tends to run for a short period of time in which the creator is the famous one, not the work itself. In the US, everything serialized is intended to either be cancelled early on (within a year or two), or run for long time, and the work itself is what becomes famous.
All you people anxious to read into my post things that I didn't put there. I don't have time for a good response to anyone yet (I'm composing two defending what I wrote). I'll post in about 12 hours a defense of what I said. It centralizes around all of you responders misunderstanding that "innocent" has multiple meanings. I do admit that I chose a word which allows for misinterpretation, but it does kind of prove a point, right? Anyone who expresses a different viewpoint on this issue deserves to be attacked verbally instead of reasoned with?
I mean, nowhere in my post did I profess to being a Christian (I am, but that's not the point). You just look for any way to create an ad hominem attack instead of reasoning with my post about the tax burdens, and about the fact that the disease is easily preventable in junior-high-school girls.
You don't have to be a young girl. You can be over 21 and have sex and get HPV as well.
Yeah, but the 21-year-olds are not junior high school students, right? I'm merely arguing against requiring junior-high-school girls to be forcibly vaccinated. In your haste to jump on everyone who disagrees with you, you missed the entire fucking core of my argument. The first goddamn sentence in my post was "...it forces young girls..." Does it force 21-year-olds?
Unless of course you are suggesting lifelong celibacy for these girls.
No, I'm suggesting that when a girl decides to have sex, she should be able to decide to get this vaccine. I'm also suggesting that a girl who chooses celibacy should not have to get the vaccine.
In any case, the genital HPVs are what cause cervical cancer, and those are all sexually transmitted. The CDC says they are sexually transmitted, and are not transmitted by casual contact. Other HPVs may be, but not the ones that cause cervical cancer.
The whole "force" thing is a red herring; the government isn't really forcing anyone to do anything.
Well, if you accept "taking away your child's right to an education which your taxes pay for" as "not forcing," fine. I'd like to quite Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, in his executive order:
The Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner shall adopt rules that mandate the age appropriate vaccination of all female children for HPV prior to admission to the sixth grade.
I don't like this because it forces young girls to get vaccinated against a disease that they can prevent by simply not having sex. It's not like measles, which can be transmitted innocently and anonymously. You have to actually have sex to get the virus. Along with this, it will cost taxpayers $400 per junior high school girl. That's gotta be millions of dollars in taxes in each state.
Slashdot Mirror
We already have a system where, if the lawsuit is frivolous or malicious, the instigator has to pay. You just don't hear about that because the media only reports on failings of our court system.If you change the system, lawyers will still win, because their skills are needed in court battles. I tell you what: next time you go into court, since you hate lawyers so much, don't hire one. We'll see how far that gets you.
I believe that during the 6th century-ish, the Samkhya school was more atheist than theist.
I'm saying it is impossible to not believe in something. In tandem, God does not have to enter the equation. The reason "religion" has been redefined to be more a synonym for "worldview" or "philosophy" (which is what I'm saying is virtually impossible to not "have") is because, if we used the old definition requiring a belief concerning God, then many world religions are not religions. Take Buddhism as an example -- it's a non-theistic religion.
But in any case, we're just arguing semantics here now, so I'll agree to disagree with you. You and all the others were very fair in your discussion.
Now let's fling some rotten tomatos at her.
The definition of "hobby" hovers around "an auxiliary activity" or a "spare-time recreational pursuit" which specifically requires a conscious action or inaction. If someone actively decided that their hobby was to "not collect stamps", then I would argue that their hobby was indeed "not collecting stamps". However, religion requires a belief in something, and it is impossible to have no beliefs. Wikipedia lists as one of the synonyms as "belief system". I would argue that rejecting the existence of God (or, for that matter, rejecting any belief held by a large portion of society) requires a belief system which will get you, through reasoning, to that rejection. Thus, unless the atheist has never pondered the question of religion, the atheist possesses a belief system which will lead them to a disbelief in God. Therefore, because the atheist has a belief system, the atheist has a religion.
I hesitate to go so far in a meager
I'll concede that. It's just that GGP's post is only true if the statement "all atheists have no religion" is true. However, another day I may want to argue that it is impossible to not have a religion, as it seems the modern definition of "religion" is "belief system about man's relationship with the universe".
Sorry about posting on an unrelated thread, but the "reply to article" button is missing from my interface.
Take GPS and a PDA to track where you went. It's quite fun to look back later and see your footsteps and be able to put photos with your location on a map.
Hum. That's pretty damn intuitive. However, it's better than the alternative: doing a time sync with microsoft.com still gives me the wrong time, and I can't sync with time.nist.gov right now. They must be having problems, too.
Here are a few summary pieces from the Westlaw headnotes:
It's a pretty ridiculous ruling, as the court says things like this:
My favorite part is the justification about how the people think it's a vegetable because of when they eat it:
I might add that this reasoning doesn't work anymore, since a lot of people consume fruits with their meal (orange juice, strawberries in cereal, bananas in packed lunches, canned peaches, etc.).
The court then goes on to talk about beans, and how they are used as vegetables even though they are not vegetables. I have to wonder what the court would have thought of the sweet bean, which is eaten as a dessert in Japan. Would they have ruled that this bean is a fruit?
It doesn't matter if right now the government is your friend. History repeatedly shows that governments will betray their citizenry and it's only a matter of time until they try to betray you, my friend. Complacency only emboldens the totalitarians among your elected officials.
For example, see the discussion above about police and their relationships with different races in the US. The government is never your friend: Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Hitler. McCarthy. Hell, we can see the Bush Administration heading down this path right now.
So 30 seconds after a knife gets pulled the police show up? What happens when you say something the government doesn't want you to say? 30 seconds after you start, you're being hauled off to a reeducation camp?
Oh Lord, I have not laughed so hard in days! You, sir, deserve a medal. And while we're at it, have you been in an automobile accident lately? Have you been hospitalized because of a problem at work?
IAALstudent
This is related to the difference between American and Japanese media in general. If you read Japanese comics, you'll notice the production values are lower. Now, I don't mean the artist-related costs; manga are primarily black and white and run in huge weekly tomes containing bits of lots of manga universes by different artists. Then, the creator is the famous one, not the manga itself. So when a story ends, the creator has a fanbase instead of the story itself. The creator then begins a new manga, and has tons of people reading. In the US, there are a ton of comic creators who are unknow while their comics are still famous. I have read [insert qualifier here, such as "astonishing"] X-Men, but I'd be hard pressed to name more than five people who have worked on X-Men, and then only one am I absolutely sure ever had a hand in the comics is Stan Lee. With the exception of a few names (Gaiman, Stan Lee, Miller), the emphasis is on the character and not on the creator.
Japanese television is the same way. While we Americans have an abundance of shows that run nearly 10 seasons (Cheers, Friends, Seinfeld, Family Matters, etc., etc., etc.), Japanese TV shows (sitcoms and such) typically run 13 weekly episodes and then they're over. The emphasis is on the actor and broadcaster instead of on the story, as far as marketing goes. "Oda Yuuji has a new drama out!" Casts also tend to be smaller in Japan (again with the lower production values so there isn't as much of an investment in a show which will end in 4 mos. time).
In Japan, everything serialized (with a few exceptions, such as Dragon Ball and Ranma 1/2) tends to run for a short period of time in which the creator is the famous one, not the work itself. In the US, everything serialized is intended to either be cancelled early on (within a year or two), or run for long time, and the work itself is what becomes famous.
All you people anxious to read into my post things that I didn't put there. I don't have time for a good response to anyone yet (I'm composing two defending what I wrote). I'll post in about 12 hours a defense of what I said. It centralizes around all of you responders misunderstanding that "innocent" has multiple meanings. I do admit that I chose a word which allows for misinterpretation, but it does kind of prove a point, right? Anyone who expresses a different viewpoint on this issue deserves to be attacked verbally instead of reasoned with?
I mean, nowhere in my post did I profess to being a Christian (I am, but that's not the point). You just look for any way to create an ad hominem attack instead of reasoning with my post about the tax burdens, and about the fact that the disease is easily preventable in junior-high-school girls.
In any case, the genital HPVs are what cause cervical cancer, and those are all sexually transmitted. The CDC says they are sexually transmitted, and are not transmitted by casual contact. Other HPVs may be, but not the ones that cause cervical cancer.