Barratry allows the state to punish you if you start a court case. The criteria are vague, but generally come down to litigating too much. This can be a problem if for example a citizen is getting repeatedly screwed over by some other citizen, company, organization or even the state
Not if the citizen being repeatedly secrewed over is being screwed over a barrage of frivolous lawsuits which they can't afford to fend off (because even if you get costs back, they'll never really cover your true costs)
Actually, the computer thingies in job centres work fairly well. The underlying database that they provide access to is badly designed, and badly filled in, but the terminals themselves largely work (and have EDS logos on them).
ah, because 'necessary update for security' and 'necessary security update' mean such different things, and don't both boil down to "you need to install this to keep your computer secure"
I bought the OEM version retail (which you can do so long as you're buying hardware in the same transaction) and it reactivates fine. The limit is once every 6 weeks, apparently.
On the other hand, it's much harder to fight a war against a foreign enemy if you have to raise a conscript army to do it, rather than deploy a standing professional army.
What you really need is a standing army which can somehow be prevented from being deployed in a military capacity domestically. On the one hand, seperating the heads of government and state and having the army loyal to the head of state means that the head of state can force the government out, on the other hand, it means that the head of state can force the government out. Most armies have some sort of oath of allegiance, if this were constructed such that soldiers were loyal to the people of the country, and specifically pledged not to allow themselves to be deployed against them, that might work, but then an oath is just words, and no substitute for government lackey top brass with a bayonet.
The US is not like every other country in that regard. the US Federal Government derives ALL of it's power from the constitution. Not constitution, no government. Therefore, any place that the US government exercises authority it must also be restrained by the constitution. Now, if the present executive don't see it that way, and want to both have, and eat, their cake, going to court to force the issue is the right thing to do.
Had there been any other caselaw on this? I suspect that SCOTUS (if it gets that far) will do its usual trick of ruling for the government, and finding some assinine way to justify it later, but it should go to court so that everyone knows where they stand anyway.
A hotel is private property. That's all the 'jurisdiction' they need.
Try that in court. As private property owners, they may have the right to turf anyone, anytime, but they've still entered a contract to let that person use the room in exchange for money. This smells like breach of contract, and it smells like an ENORMOUS damages payout. You don't get to just claim back what you paid, you get to claim back damages caused by the breach of contract - if the hotel has destroyed their major marketing opportunity for the year, that could probably run into hundreds of thousands. And good. If this puts them out of business, all the better.
and my point is that it shouldn't. If it's a public place, it should be open to all of the public - or at least so large subset of it as is possible without making it unuseable for everyone else. (No, the fact that you would prefer to eat peanuts on the flight does not make the aircraft unuseable if they're not available.)
If you provide mass-transit to the public, you make it available to the largest possible subset of the public, or you find a different industry. Mass-transit is too important (and in the case of aircraft the only reasonable solution for long haul travel) to be left up to the whim of 'company policy'. It's a shame that disability laws have had to be shoehorned into getting things dealth with properly. The salted peanut lobby is stronger than I though.
Anyway, things have broken into two questions:
Should the airline favour the allergy sufferer by banning peanuts on the flight?
Should the airline be forced to do so by government mandate?
there are two adjectives and two nouns: private place, private property - your house public place, private property - an aircraft private place, public property - the mayor's office (the actual room) public place, public property - the street
A place can be public, despite being privately owned. I assumed that I'd made that pretty abundantly clear by using all four words in that sentence, but obviously I hadn't. The airline will sell a ticket to anyone who has the money on a non-preferential basis, this means that the plane is open to the public, and is a public place. Just think about a law which applies to behaviour in a public place, and ask yourself "does this apply on an aircraft?"
It strikes me that there can't be a lot of judges who will be very impressed with someone saying that a contractural disagreement is outside the jurisdiction of the courts generally, and must be handed over to some clearly biased* private organisation.
*You don't continue to be Large Corp Inc's preferred arbitrator by bringing in decisions against them
You want to eat peanuts - that's your preference. Why should the significant minority of the population who suffer nut allergies be forced to change their behaviour (by staying off aircraft - the only practicable means of travelling more than about 1500 miles, though this could equally apply to trains & buses) to suit you?
With my balancing: You can choose to travel on the aircraft (suffering the minor inconvenience of not being able to give yourself heart diease), or stay at home.
With your balancing: The person with the nut allergy can choose to travel on the aircraft (knowing that they may end up dead if they, say, get your peanuts chucked on them by turbulence), or stay at home.
You want to err on the side of freedom to do as you please (within the law) in public - I want to err on the side of the freedom to be in public (i.e. people with fairly common allergies being free to use public places*). I suppose they're just different forms of freedom.
*An aircraft may be privately owned, but it is a public place
perhaps you should get over yourself and stop demanding that you be given the 'right' to eat non-essential (and nutritionaly damaging) snacks (which you'll only have because they're given to you by the airline) in a confined space with someone who has a non-negligible chance of dying if they come into contact with it, and consequently finds mearly smelling the damn things terrifying
The sad thing about Zimbabwe is that, even assuming that a sane government were to come in tomorrow, and assuming that they were willing to sieze the farms back by force & return them to their original owners (many of whom have now left the country), it would probably take at least a decade to get farming back on its feet.
He's likely living in a cave somewhere. That's pretty miserable, and worse than any of the prisons that any of the civilised nations who want to get him would keep him in.
It's just so flaming obvious - none of that monkeying with curly brackets program numbers implicit none integer:: i for i = 1, 10, 1 write(6,*) i end end program
That, along with a sample output, is completely obvious. C-style looping is completely impenetrable.
Fortran is, by default, case insensitive. This immediately stops you from doing stupid things like having variables called 'mapSize' and 'mapsize'.
F90/5 is not F77, it's free-form, you don't have to start commands in column 6, or put things in block capitals
Many of the things that you will want to do are available automatically, unlike C, you don't need to declare the math library at the top (and seperately tell the compiler to include it) just to use a square root.
Unlike higher-level languages, like python, fortran leaves you near enough to the metal to learn C later if you actually need that level of control.
Everything's free
The only real disadvantage is that it's damn-near impossible to make pretty pictures directly with fortran
Fine, I'll place the blame on the UN, which didn't learn Neville Chamberlain's 1938 lesson about why you don't give away what's not yours to militaristic people who tell you that they want it in exchange for them not taking it from the people who it does belong to by force.
awkward catch-22. You can refuse to follow an unlawful order, but if you get brought up on charges, you may end up with a judge who will refuse to hear argument on whether the order was lawful or not by labelling it a 'politcal question'
Slashdot Mirror
they now ask for a degree from a small group of universities
I've got one of those degrees (physics, 2:2, Russel Group university), no-one is in the least bit interested.
Barratry allows the state to punish you if you start a court case. The criteria are vague, but generally come down to litigating too much. This can be a problem if for example a citizen is getting repeatedly screwed over by some other citizen, company, organization or even the state
Not if the citizen being repeatedly secrewed over is being screwed over a barrage of frivolous lawsuits which they can't afford to fend off (because even if you get costs back, they'll never really cover your true costs)
Actually, the computer thingies in job centres work fairly well. The underlying database that they provide access to is badly designed, and badly filled in, but the terminals themselves largely work (and have EDS logos on them).
ah, because 'necessary update for security' and 'necessary security update' mean such different things, and don't both boil down to "you need to install this to keep your computer secure"
I bought the OEM version retail (which you can do so long as you're buying hardware in the same transaction) and it reactivates fine. The limit is once every 6 weeks, apparently.
On the other hand, it's much harder to fight a war against a foreign enemy if you have to raise a conscript army to do it, rather than deploy a standing professional army.
What you really need is a standing army which can somehow be prevented from being deployed in a military capacity domestically.
On the one hand, seperating the heads of government and state and having the army loyal to the head of state means that the head of state can force the government out, on the other hand, it means that the head of state can force the government out.
Most armies have some sort of oath of allegiance, if this were constructed such that soldiers were loyal to the people of the country, and specifically pledged not to allow themselves to be deployed against them, that might work, but then an oath is just words, and no substitute for government lackey top brass with a bayonet.
if it were armed with a railgun, it could scavenge (non-ferous) metal to use as ammunition, too.
apple isnt using kodiak hardware.
Well, no, they were wiped out by the Drago-Kazov, so very little of their hardware exists anymore.
The US is not like every other country in that regard. the US Federal Government derives ALL of it's power from the constitution. Not constitution, no government. Therefore, any place that the US government exercises authority it must also be restrained by the constitution. Now, if the present executive don't see it that way, and want to both have, and eat, their cake, going to court to force the issue is the right thing to do.
Had there been any other caselaw on this? I suspect that SCOTUS (if it gets that far) will do its usual trick of ruling for the government, and finding some assinine way to justify it later, but it should go to court so that everyone knows where they stand anyway.
I hardly think that one hotel run by morons going under will cause the natinal economy to collapse.
A hotel is private property. That's all the 'jurisdiction' they need.
Try that in court. As private property owners, they may have the right to turf anyone, anytime, but they've still entered a contract to let that person use the room in exchange for money. This smells like breach of contract, and it smells like an ENORMOUS damages payout. You don't get to just claim back what you paid, you get to claim back damages caused by the breach of contract - if the hotel has destroyed their major marketing opportunity for the year, that could probably run into hundreds of thousands. And good. If this puts them out of business, all the better.
and my point is that it shouldn't. If it's a public place, it should be open to all of the public - or at least so large subset of it as is possible without making it unuseable for everyone else. (No, the fact that you would prefer to eat peanuts on the flight does not make the aircraft unuseable if they're not available.)
If you provide mass-transit to the public, you make it available to the largest possible subset of the public, or you find a different industry. Mass-transit is too important (and in the case of aircraft the only reasonable solution for long haul travel) to be left up to the whim of 'company policy'. It's a shame that disability laws have had to be shoehorned into getting things dealth with properly. The salted peanut lobby is stronger than I though.
Anyway, things have broken into two questions:
Which one are we now arguing about?
there are two adjectives and two nouns:
private place, private property - your house
public place, private property - an aircraft
private place, public property - the mayor's office (the actual room)
public place, public property - the street
A place can be public, despite being privately owned. I assumed that I'd made that pretty abundantly clear by using all four words in that sentence, but obviously I hadn't. The airline will sell a ticket to anyone who has the money on a non-preferential basis, this means that the plane is open to the public, and is a public place.
Just think about a law which applies to behaviour in a public place, and ask yourself "does this apply on an aircraft?"
It strikes me that there can't be a lot of judges who will be very impressed with someone saying that a contractural disagreement is outside the jurisdiction of the courts generally, and must be handed over to some clearly biased* private organisation.
*You don't continue to be Large Corp Inc's preferred arbitrator by bringing in decisions against them
You want to eat peanuts - that's your preference. Why should the significant minority of the population who suffer nut allergies be forced to change their behaviour (by staying off aircraft - the only practicable means of travelling more than about 1500 miles, though this could equally apply to trains & buses) to suit you?
With my balancing:
You can choose to travel on the aircraft (suffering the minor inconvenience of not being able to give yourself heart diease), or stay at home.
With your balancing:
The person with the nut allergy can choose to travel on the aircraft (knowing that they may end up dead if they, say, get your peanuts chucked on them by turbulence), or stay at home.
You want to err on the side of freedom to do as you please (within the law) in public - I want to err on the side of the freedom to be in public (i.e. people with fairly common allergies being free to use public places*). I suppose they're just different forms of freedom.
*An aircraft may be privately owned, but it is a public place
good, now everything is on some paperwork, you can get the evidence thrown out later by getting the order thrown out.
perhaps you should get over yourself and stop demanding that you be given the 'right' to eat non-essential (and nutritionaly damaging) snacks (which you'll only have because they're given to you by the airline) in a confined space with someone who has a non-negligible chance of dying if they come into contact with it, and consequently finds mearly smelling the damn things terrifying
Perhaps he wanted to know who would be on the board. Shuttleworth? Markting drones? The existing members? Users? Me?
"from bread-basket to basket-case"
The sad thing about Zimbabwe is that, even assuming that a sane government were to come in tomorrow, and assuming that they were willing to sieze the farms back by force & return them to their original owners (many of whom have now left the country), it would probably take at least a decade to get farming back on its feet.
He's likely living in a cave somewhere. That's pretty miserable, and worse than any of the prisons that any of the civilised nations who want to get him would keep him in.
excuse me while I expound this a little:
Fortran is awesome for the following reasons:
program numbers
implicit none
integer
for i = 1, 10, 1
write(6,*) i
end
end program
That, along with a sample output, is completely obvious. C-style looping is completely impenetrable.
The only real disadvantage is that it's damn-near impossible to make pretty pictures directly with fortran
Fine, I'll place the blame on the UN, which didn't learn Neville Chamberlain's 1938 lesson about why you don't give away what's not yours to militaristic people who tell you that they want it in exchange for them not taking it from the people who it does belong to by force.
awkward catch-22. You can refuse to follow an unlawful order, but if you get brought up on charges, you may end up with a judge who will refuse to hear argument on whether the order was lawful or not by labelling it a 'politcal question'
and even if there were, if it resulted from a contract he would not be committing a criminal offence simply by not honouring his end of it.
c) in a room with about two dozen other people equally unauthorised & unqualified