I don't know about most places, but in California, it's really quite hard to get someone labeled as a vexatious litigant. They actually need to lose a given number of cases in court in a given span of time. Since most vexatious litigants (colloquially speaking) use FUD to get payouts, it is really quite hard to use this piece of law against them.
He did NOT "ask a bunch of nerds important legal questions". He asked how he should go about finding a qualified lawyer.
I'm not asking for legal advise from the Slashdot community. The question is where might one look for 'legal counsel' with the expertise to answer these types of legal questions as it relates to this inquiry.
Heat is vibrating atoms. (Or slightly more accurately, banging off each other randomly like billiard balls.) Some of that energy gets converted and emitted as radiation, and radiation can be absorbed and converted to heat, but that does NOT make them the same thing.
It's only a "law" because we do not yet know how to break it.
I, for one, look forward to the day (year, century...) when we decide that it's an obsolete principle. Until we actually know all the rules of the game, all the interactions, all the api of the universe... we cannot know that anything is truly a "law of physics". We can speculate, postulate, investigate, narrow-in-on, or disprove, but never really affirm.
(Which is not to say that this specific mechanism shows any promise, just that some mechanism might exist in the future.)
Worker rights aren't (much), but union "rights" are contributing. (Unions can be a very good thing, or a very bad thing. These super pervasive unions are practically organized crime.)
Loosening the immigration policy wont bring in more people, it will just insure they get paid better and stop looking over their shoulder for ICE.
It won't bring back manufacturing. Even most illegal Mexican labor won't work for rates low enough, and regulatory overburden alone prevents it. (Note: We need better regulation, not just less regulation. Much of what we have is totally ineffective at achieving legitimate goals, only in killing jobs.)
Supposedly, Social security is being propped up by "immigration", and would be even more-so if it was legal immigration. I think this might be true, but I can't tell if it's a byproduct of bad laws, or a weird twist in our collective culture.
The influx of cheap labor is not a fix. It's more like a morphine addiction that results from an injury. Both political parties are trying to destroy our economy, and neither understand how.
(And yes, I believe in guest worker visas AND securing our southern border.)
"Natural" does not always imply nature. It follows the etymology, but not longstanding common usage.
...
4
: having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question [his guilt is a natural deduction from the evidence] ...
7
: having a specified character by nature [a natural athlete]
8 ...
c : having a normal or usual character [events followed their natural course] ...
It's a bit like what Palestine is doing to the invading Israeli forces, except that this time the Americans are on the wrong side.
Both the Israelis and Palestinians have done horrible, dishonorable things in the past to try to drive out the opposing side. I think Israel currently has some bad policies, but I don't believe they are murderous lunatics. Various Palestinian organization... and even churches... actively encourage the populous to be frothing-at-the-mouth murderous "martyrs".
The US is on the right side of this one, even if we can't convince Israel to give up some of their more unreasonable policies.
If my understanding is correct, I blame post WW2 politicians of England (long retired and dead) for starting this mess.
There should only be defensive armies. Drones are not a defensive tool. They should not exist.
Of course they are. They actually work better as defensive weapons. Just because they are often used offensively doesn't mean they aren't natural peace keepers.
Indeed. Humans NEVER accept that the answer is so simple.
Don't resort to war. If your cause requires forcing somebody else at gunpoint to comply, it isn't just, it isn't honorable, and it cannot be justified. So, just don't do it.
Let's say that China attacks Guam tomorrow, and starts moving for Hawaii and the US mainland. What should be done? What should France have done when Germany invaded them in the blitzkrieg?
Clearly somebody isn't justified in any war. Frequently it's both parties. However, it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to say that war is never justified for any of the participants.
Yes, war is never, ever a good thing. Sometimes, though, it really is better than the alternative.
That is a fantastic question. But... Whose parents? Note that the victims parents can't teach the bully that he's misbehaving.
When I was in junior high, I was bullied frequently and mercilessly. My parents did get involved. They were told by the school councilor that I just had a self-esteem problem (I didn't) which somehow made myself a target (blame the victim, anyone?). They were told by teachers that there was nothing they could do (not true). They were told by administrators that everything was fine. They weren't permitted to contact the other students' parents. I blame the school system (primarily) for permitting bullying.
Conservatism is about conserving what has worked in the past.
There is simply no path back from where we are to where we were (public dept is to high, regulatory over-burden too hard to reverse). All we're left with is arguing about how to get somewhere sane. Some conservatives aren't doing it very intelligently*. Other so-called conservatives are taking advantage of the situation. Some few are trying to fix problems, but are restrained by idiots from their side and decried by extremist from the other.
*(to be fair, this post could easily be changed from "conservative" to "progressive" and still be completely correct.)
This way you know which bumper sticker is least likely to get your car keyed in your county.
If you're not willing to risk getting your car keyed, then there's no real point to having a political bumper sticker.
Political bumper stickers are there to legitimize politicians and political points of view. The hope is that they will convince people to look more kindly upon a given idea, or perhaps research it. If there is no serious opposition*, then the battle is already won.
*(Keying cars is very bad form; there will always be a jerk in every political alignment; if there is no jerk who might conceivably key your car, then there is no real opposition to the idea.)
Ah, you've been reading bad fiction again. I can count the truths in that link on one hand.
Yes, Mormons wear symbolic undergarments. They are disparagingly referred to as "magic underwear". Everything else on that page was written by someone with an ax to grind.
The one that helped John Smith with his "translations." I suppose I should say Mormons let the words of a magic rock dictate their beliefs. Is that better?
No, but at least you're being clear now.
Today, if I want to read the word of God, I can sit down at a magic box, wave my fingers around, and it will tell me the exact passages that I asked for. Seems absolutely crazy, doesn't it?
Once you accept the bare concept of a Divine being, one must accept the probability that said being knows a lot more about possible technology than we do. (read: the use of science that is currently beyond our understanding)
allegedly, that would be caving to shentino, as in "don't piss me off or I will hurt you"
Which smacks of intimidation.
I'm saying that if someone gets hurt because someone pissed off shentino, that would be intimidation.
You see what just happened there? Someone who has not made any kind of threat, or moved to threaten has been impugned of intimidation. No evidence has been brought to bear, nor need be.
I'm not sure you mean to be unreasonably, but you certainly sound that way.
That's a new one. I've heard all kinds of bizarre falsehoods and misunderstandings, but confusing Mormonism with Islam? That would be funny if the implications weren't so severe.
Mormonism is [reputed to be] quite crazy as a religious belief though their believers seem to be very nice personalities.
FTFY;-)
No, seriously. Many people find religious belief in general to be bizarre, but Mormonism is no more-so than most. What Mormonism has more of are "quite crazy" rumors, half grounded in truth (or less).
Which magic rock would this be? The only object of worship in the theology is the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). If there are any Mormons worshiping holy rocks, I don't know them.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL
I don't know about most places, but in California, it's really quite hard to get someone labeled as a vexatious litigant. They actually need to lose a given number of cases in court in a given span of time. Since most vexatious litigants (colloquially speaking) use FUD to get payouts, it is really quite hard to use this piece of law against them.
I know I'm responding to AC, but I'll bite:
He did NOT "ask a bunch of nerds important legal questions". He asked how he should go about finding a qualified lawyer.
Reading comprehension. It's fun. Try it sometime.
Yes indeed. Heat has more in common with sound than it does with light. (Not that they're the same.)
Face Palm!
Heat is vibrating atoms. (Or slightly more accurately, banging off each other randomly like billiard balls.) Some of that energy gets converted and emitted as radiation, and radiation can be absorbed and converted to heat, but that does NOT make them the same thing.
It's only a "law" because we do not yet know how to break it.
I, for one, look forward to the day (year, century...) when we decide that it's an obsolete principle. Until we actually know all the rules of the game, all the interactions, all the api of the universe... we cannot know that anything is truly a "law of physics". We can speculate, postulate, investigate, narrow-in-on, or disprove, but never really affirm.
(Which is not to say that this specific mechanism shows any promise, just that some mechanism might exist in the future.)
Worker rights aren't (much), but union "rights" are contributing. (Unions can be a very good thing, or a very bad thing. These super pervasive unions are practically organized crime.)
Loosening the immigration policy wont bring in more people, it will just insure they get paid better and stop looking over their shoulder for ICE.
It won't bring back manufacturing. Even most illegal Mexican labor won't work for rates low enough, and regulatory overburden alone prevents it. (Note: We need better regulation, not just less regulation. Much of what we have is totally ineffective at achieving legitimate goals, only in killing jobs.)
Supposedly, Social security is being propped up by "immigration", and would be even more-so if it was legal immigration. I think this might be true, but I can't tell if it's a byproduct of bad laws, or a weird twist in our collective culture.
The influx of cheap labor is not a fix. It's more like a morphine addiction that results from an injury. Both political parties are trying to destroy our economy, and neither understand how.
(And yes, I believe in guest worker visas AND securing our southern border.)
Deterrents, yes, but they're also great for airborne patrol. They're used extensively and peacefully* on the US/Mexico border.
*(unarmed, or so we're told)
It's a bit like what Palestine is doing to the invading Israeli forces, except that this time the Americans are on the wrong side.
Both the Israelis and Palestinians have done horrible, dishonorable things in the past to try to drive out the opposing side. I think Israel currently has some bad policies, but I don't believe they are murderous lunatics. Various Palestinian organization... and even churches... actively encourage the populous to be frothing-at-the-mouth murderous "martyrs".
The US is on the right side of this one, even if we can't convince Israel to give up some of their more unreasonable policies.
If my understanding is correct, I blame post WW2 politicians of England (long retired and dead) for starting this mess.
There should only be defensive armies. Drones are not a defensive tool. They should not exist.
Of course they are. They actually work better as defensive weapons. Just because they are often used offensively doesn't mean they aren't natural peace keepers.
Indeed. Humans NEVER accept that the answer is so simple.
Don't resort to war. If your cause requires forcing somebody else at gunpoint to comply, it isn't just, it isn't honorable, and it cannot be justified. So, just don't do it.
Let's say that China attacks Guam tomorrow, and starts moving for Hawaii and the US mainland. What should be done? What should France have done when Germany invaded them in the blitzkrieg?
Clearly somebody isn't justified in any war. Frequently it's both parties. However, it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to say that war is never justified for any of the participants.
Yes, war is never, ever a good thing. Sometimes, though, it really is better than the alternative.
Where the f' are the parents in all this?
That is a fantastic question. But... Whose parents? Note that the victims parents can't teach the bully that he's misbehaving.
When I was in junior high, I was bullied frequently and mercilessly. My parents did get involved. They were told by the school councilor that I just had a self-esteem problem (I didn't) which somehow made myself a target (blame the victim, anyone?). They were told by teachers that there was nothing they could do (not true). They were told by administrators that everything was fine. They weren't permitted to contact the other students' parents. I blame the school system (primarily) for permitting bullying.
Conservatism is about conserving what has worked in the past.
There is simply no path back from where we are to where we were (public dept is to high, regulatory over-burden too hard to reverse). All we're left with is arguing about how to get somewhere sane. Some conservatives aren't doing it very intelligently*. Other so-called conservatives are taking advantage of the situation. Some few are trying to fix problems, but are restrained by idiots from their side and decried by extremist from the other.
*(to be fair, this post could easily be changed from "conservative" to "progressive" and still be completely correct.)
No, I read that. That's where the word "allegedly" came into play.
Your post never actually made an accusation. This is true. I never said that it did. What it did to was make a strong insinuation.
I was pointing out how rude it had been. I still hope it was unintentional, but it was entirely uncalled for, as framed.
He looks like a left wing nut job. That doesn't mean that there's not a lot of truth there, though.
It appears to me that both parties have been engaging in election stealing campaigns... not using fraudulent voters, but insiders.
May the sneakiest thief win.
(Please note, I don't think the candidates themselves have any idea this is going on. I think the parties are doing it.)
This way you know which bumper sticker is least likely to get your car keyed in your county.
If you're not willing to risk getting your car keyed, then there's no real point to having a political bumper sticker.
Political bumper stickers are there to legitimize politicians and political points of view. The hope is that they will convince people to look more kindly upon a given idea, or perhaps research it. If there is no serious opposition*, then the battle is already won.
*(Keying cars is very bad form; there will always be a jerk in every political alignment; if there is no jerk who might conceivably key your car, then there is no real opposition to the idea.)
Ah, you've been reading bad fiction again. I can count the truths in that link on one hand.
Yes, Mormons wear symbolic undergarments. They are disparagingly referred to as "magic underwear". Everything else on that page was written by someone with an ax to grind.
The one that helped John Smith with his "translations." I suppose I should say Mormons let the words of a magic rock dictate their beliefs. Is that better?
No, but at least you're being clear now.
Today, if I want to read the word of God, I can sit down at a magic box, wave my fingers around, and it will tell me the exact passages that I asked for. Seems absolutely crazy, doesn't it?
Once you accept the bare concept of a Divine being, one must accept the probability that said being knows a lot more about possible technology than we do. (read: the use of science that is currently beyond our understanding)
allegedly, that would be caving to shentino, as in "don't piss me off or I will hurt you"
Which smacks of intimidation.
I'm saying that if someone gets hurt because someone pissed off shentino, that would be intimidation.
You see what just happened there? Someone who has not made any kind of threat, or moved to threaten has been impugned of intimidation. No evidence has been brought to bear, nor need be.
I'm not sure you mean to be unreasonably, but you certainly sound that way.
That's a new one. I've heard all kinds of bizarre falsehoods and misunderstandings, but confusing Mormonism with Islam? That would be funny if the implications weren't so severe.
If they violate the explicit teachings in the Book of Mormon, what else would you call it?
And yes, there are splinter groups that could legitimately call themselves Mormon, it just makes LDS uncomfortable (due to the ambiguity it causes).
Mormonism is [reputed to be] quite crazy as a religious belief though their believers seem to be very nice personalities.
FTFY ;-)
No, seriously. Many people find religious belief in general to be bizarre, but Mormonism is no more-so than most. What Mormonism has more of are "quite crazy" rumors, half grounded in truth (or less).
It takes an unprecedented level of double-think to believe Joseph Smith's story about the golden plates that no-one ever saw, ...
By no means do you need to believe it, and you can go ahead and call it double-think if you like.
You should be aware, however, that 11 other men claimed to have seen the plates. That's not no-one.
Which magic rock would this be? The only object of worship in the theology is the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). If there are any Mormons worshiping holy rocks, I don't know them.