Does this law change the punishment for the crime for which the criminal was convicted? Yes, it does. Is the punishment greater than that applied at conviction? Yes, it is. Are these two changes relevant to the law annexed to the crime when committed? Yes, they are.
Again, the prohibition against ex post facto laws only applies to when the law was PASSED, and only if it's a different punishment for the same offense. If the law had been amended to extend the sentence for a sex crime, the new sentence could not apply to people previously convicted under the old law. However, this is a separate law entirely. In order to be committed under this statute, the government needs to show to a judge's satisfaction that a person qualifies under the law to be held in custody. Specifically, that person must be 1) already in federal custody for a sex offense, and 2) likely to be a danger if released. Any person who can be shown to meet these two qualifications can be held under the new law, regardless of the specific crime for which you are in custody. It's the same as if the government sought to keep someone in custody because he had developed schizophrenia or some other mental illness for which you can be held in custody under a civil statute. You may not like the conditions, but calling it an ex post facto law shows you don't really understand what the term means and what it ACTUALLY applies to. I'll give you a hint: nowhere in the Supreme Court decision, or even in the arguments, was the possibility even raised of this law being invalid under the ex post facto clause.
Also, you're talking out your ass about parole and fighting, etc. These are new violations of existing laws and they get new punishments.
Well, no. You can violate your probation based on some activity that is otherwise completely legal. For example, drinking while on probation for a drunk driving conviction, or entering a school while on probation for child molestation. Your punishment is increased for the original crime, not the new violation specifically. And as far as starting a fight in prison, you don't need to be tried and convicted to be sent to solitary as an enhancement to your existing punishment. That is a power authorized to the warden by the legislature, and it is solely up to his discretion how to administer it. You don't get an appeal from his decision. In fact, "starting a fight" isn't even necessarily a crime. It's not illegal to use a racist epithet against someone to his face, but if it's in an attempt to incite prison violence, then it can be punished regardless. The point of all of this is that punishments CAN and ARE increased after conviction based on events subsequent to the conviction. And anyway, this is all irrelevant, because once again (and please try to understand this) ex post facto only deals with the passage of new laws, not the subsequent application of existing ones. The closest thing to what you're describing is double jeopardy, which again, doesn't apply here anyway because it's not a second punishment for the same offense (and other court decisions have specifically held that to be the case, so don't even try).
No? What are "sex offenders", then, if not a group of people? It is a classing mechanism, is it not? Can you tell if you are in the class? Yes, certainly you can. Can you tell if you're not in the class? Yes, again, easily. So you're wrong again. Must not be your day, pal.
Stop and think about how foolish you sound here. Under that logic, "criminals" is a class of people, and you can't pass a law that puts them in jail. Also, you're being disingenuous in not quoting the rest of the paragraph where I specifically state that "sex offenders" doesn't count, because ANYONE could potentially be convicted of a sex crime. A bill of attainder would be, for example, a law that makes it a crime to be named "David Johnson" or to live at 123 Main St. in Chicago. Laws that are based on spec
Sorry, no. "Ex post facto" has nothing to do with increasing the punishment after conviction. It refers specifically to declaring something illegal, then prosecuting somebody under that law based on conduct that occurred before the law was passed. Regardless, punishment is increased after conviction and sentencing all the time. Violate the terms of your probation? Straight to the slammer. Start a fight in prison? You get sent to solitary. And so on.
Let's address some of the other things you may be misinformed about. This is not a bill of attainder, because it doesn't address specific people or groups of people. And no, the "group" of people who are in prison doesn't count, because potentially ANYBODY could be in prison for some other crime. If the bill stated that it only applied to black people, or people named Steve, then it would not be permissible. It's also (arguably) not a due process violation, because since it is a civil punishment and not a criminal one, the standard is lower than what is necessary to convict a person of a crime and send him to prison. You still need to convince a judge under this law, so there is still a due process issue. But the Supreme Court specifically did not address that in this case.
What's at issue here is ultimately whether the United States, given the authority to imprison somebody for a crime, can indefinitely extend that time under a civil statute based on a showing to a judge that it is necessary. This is not legally any different from the authority to put somebody in solitary confinement, or deny access to privileges based on behavior. I'm not comfortable with the ruling in this case, and I agree with Justices Thomas and Scalia that this is an inappropriate extension of government power. But please get your facts and legal terminology straight before going off half-cocked based on your limited legal understanding.
The Israeli Supreme Court ruled this week that there is no civil procedure to reveal the identity of users behind an IP address, and that until such procedure shall be legislated, all internet postings, even torturous, may remain anonymous.
The occasional posting may well be tortuous, but the vast majority of postings on the Internet are torturous. Check out MySpace and Facebook to see what I mean.
...I'm in my single digits (and I'm not talking about the number of partners).
That may be the best euphemism for masturbation I've ever heard. It was even worth reading through your nauseatingly detailed description of your chode for.
That reminds me... I need to head down to the ATM machine and punch in my PIN number so I can select the amount of cash that I need on the LCD display.
(Incidentally, I note that Idle still has a 20 character wide comment input box. I guess the CSS style sheet must be screwed up.)
"we don't do that. The patent says X, we don't do X, therefore go away, sue someone else, it's not relevant for us."
"Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds."
1) You weren't granted the "right to pursue happiness". 2) That "right" isn't mentioned in the United States Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence states that "the pursuit of happiness" is one of the inalienable Rights endowed to men by their Creator. The Declaration of Independence, however, carries very little legal weight in itself. Anyway, the government doesn't really give a damn about how happy you are. You may be born with the right to pursue happiness, but ain't nothin' says you're entitled to actually find it.
And even if there were a Constitutional right to "pursue happiness", your legal reasoning is faulty. It is well established that businesses have the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason, except on the basis of discrimination against a protected class of people. And phone hackers most certainly do not fall into any such class.
I find it amazing that people can stare right at numbers and come up with contorted reasoning why the numbers can't possibly say what they actually say. Try taking a look at the study. You will find that, of the accidents in this time period, only 1% were the result of driver inattention. That means that, for 99% of all accidents, there was some other identifiable cause. And of the 1%, only 10% were related to cell phone use. That means that the other 90% were explained by some other factor. It's not like they just look at these accidents, and if they can't figure out the cause write down "unknown" and move on.
So, again, please use your half a brain and think about this. Even if there were somehow TEN TIMES as many actual accidents as were reported that were caused by cell phone use, that still wouldn't be a statistically significant number of accidents if you're trying to detect a year to year trend. Even if it were twenty or thirty times higher, it still would be hard to establish a trend. This is exactly what the current study shows--that there is no significant change in accident rates with the passage of cell phone laws.
If you truly believe that cell phone accidents are under-reported by a factor large enough to matter statistically, well, I'd like to see some numbers backing that contention up. But you can't--all you have is anecdotal evidence and your poor half a brain. The same half a brain that makes it "obvious" that cell phone use while driving is dangerous also apparently makes it "obvious" that the numbers MUST be lying. It's kind of like a religion to you, isn't it?
Forget the "studies" that result in cute sound bites like "talking on a cell phone is like driving drunk". Let's look at some good, hard numbers: DRIVER DISTRACTIONS AND INATTENTION DATA SUMMARY
The key info is on page 5. From January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2002 in California, there were 491,083 accidents. Of those, cell phones were only considered a factor in 611 of them. That works out to about 0.1% of all accidents. Even if we (generously) assume such accidents are somehow under-reported by a factor of ten (which is extremely unlikely, since driver inattention was only considered a factor in 1% of all accidents in that time period), that's no more than 1% of all accidents. That's well within the margin of error for year to year fluctuations. There's no way a ban on cell phone use in cars could have any statistically significant effect on accident numbers.
"But, but, I've see people on cell phones who were bad drivers!" Yeah, and I've seen plenty of bad drivers who weren't on cell phones. Does cell phone usage cause bad driving? I don't know. Maybe bad drivers are more likely to use cell phones. But do cell phones cause accidents? The numbers just don't support that conclusion.
I've heard of some crazy Scandinavian names, but come on. That's just somebody banging on the keyboard. Next you're going to tell me about the famed Swedish Lkajadsfglkn.
Maybe so. I probably should have been clearer, though, and specified that by "mathematicians" I meant people who were profoundly gifted with mathematical skill, much like Grigory Perelman. I have known several people like this, and the behavior I describe is universal among them. I spoke to woman who had dated one for a long time, and when we she mentioned he was just such a mathematical genius I immediately was able to describe his personality to her with near perfect accuracy. She said it was like I knew him personally, when I'd never met the man in my life.
So, is my sample size too small to draw general conclusions? Probably, but I was just speaking as to my experience. And in my experience, the similarities between the mathematical geniuses I have known (or known of) are as striking as how different they are from other types of people. I don't find Perelman's behavior--or his presumptive motivations for such behavior--surprising in the least.
Perelman has a mind that is capable of taking in more information than any mathematical mind that has come before. His brain is like a universal math compactor. He grasps complex problems and reduces them to their solvable essence. The problem is that he expects human beings to be similarly subject to reduction.
This is a universal affliction among mathematicians I've known. They tend to look at the world mathematically, and aren't really able to understand things they can't reduce to an equation. This leads to a very black and white view of the world, where things must be a certain way, and anything that doesn't fall into that worldview is just wrong. Everything that people do must have a rational reason, and if they can't find one they will construct a reason that seems rational to them--regardless of how simplistic it is, or how dim a view of their fellow human beings it leads them to.
Mathematicians, by and large, tend to be very unhappy people in my experience. Not all of them, of course. Some mathematicians have a certain "spark" that allows them to abandon mathematics temporarily and give themselves over to the pleasure of an interpersonal relationship; but even so it is still against their nature to do so, and they will always slip back into the comfort of a mathematical outlook sooner or later.
I suspect that extraordinary skill in mathematics is not the cause of such a personality, but rather they are both common effects of some psychological variation that simply causes such people to perceive the world in a particular way.
Oligopolies are perfectly capable of being formed in a free market economy. A free market refers to the lack of governmental intervention except in cases of force or fraud. An oligopoly is a market segment (whether in a free market, a socialist economy, or even anarchy) that is dominated by a small group of entities. The two concepts are not incompatible, or even comparable. Saying "it's not a free market, it's an oligopoly" is a non-sequitur. It's kind of like saying "it's not a car, it's blue".
I think you may not be clear on what "free market economy" actually means. A free market economy requires a certain level of structure. The unauthorized taking of property by means such as fraud, theft, or extortion must be illegal and punishable by the government. Contracts must be enforceable by some means, either through the courts or through private governing bodies. And such laws must be applied equally and fairly to all citizens of a society. Without this fundamental framework, you don't have a free marked economy--you have anarchy.
Democracy has nothing to do with a free market economy. People are free to vote for or not vote for laws that detract from the freedom of the market, just as kings or dictators can enact or not enact the same laws. Democracy is merely the process of a society deciding how it runs itself, not how it's actually run. A free market economy is just as compatible with democracy as a socialist command economy is.
If they didn't get you on the back end, they could just charge you more up front to buy the phone, then amortize the up front cost through lower monthly bills, until in the end you pay the same amount. That way, they could even offer "no termination fee!" But I'm sure somebody would still get pissed at call it deceptive business practices. It's a free market, and they can charge anything they like. This is a total non-story.
Please, Slashdot, can we have a way to filter out stories by submitter? I don't think I've ever seen a story from "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property" that doesn't irritate me with its smug sanctimony and total irrelevance. Personally, I don't believe in imaginary news.
Try actually searching for those terms. It's the title of an essay satirizing Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Biblical literalism. Not so weird, really, in context.
This is two monumentally stupid articles I've seen from CNET UK in as many days (the other one being the power plugs article from yesterday). If Slashdot continues to post them, I think we should insist on a tag just for that site so we can filter them out.
Oh, well that TOTALLY justifies the random assault on and murder of innocent bystanders, wanton destruction of property, and terrorizing of an entire city.
So 'for all' was never intended to include the poor or indigent?
That's not what I said. I said that in some cases, some people will not be able to afford to litigate cases they could probably win. Having these sort of investors helps to rectify that situation.
Note that I never claimed that legal services should be free, just that it shouldn't require investors to cover the costs.
In most cases, it doesn't. In small claims court, you can't have a lawyer. And in lawsuits that involve great sums of money, you generally can't afford NOT to have the best legal representation that you can afford. As a litigant, you often have the option of proceeding pro se, or hiring much cheaper legal counsel to represent you. But this is generally accepted to be a false savings. And if you artificially limit the price of legal representation, you also artificially limit the quality. Simple economics.
Supposedly, lawyers are officers of the court and so legally bound to head off the frivolous and trivial lawsuits themselves. They are SUPPOSED to be sanctioned if they fail to do so.
They do. That's one reason why you're required to have a lawyer represent you in lawsuits in Federal court. And a natural result of having good legal representation cost as much as it does is that the frivolous cases that have no chance of winning tend not to be brought. Also, most lawyers do not want to have their reputations sullied by bringing numerous meritless cases, thereby potentially opening themselves up to such sanctions.
Sure they are. Bubbles tend to raise costs. They might have been able to afford justice if not for inflated prices, but unless they're practically a sure thing, they won't be able to attract 'investors'.
You could also reason that this will bring down the cost of legal representation, as large corporations with bottomless war chests are no longer able to simply pay for a team of lawyers to drag out the case until the plaintiff runs out of money. It will end up being much cheaper to simply settle the case quickly. That reduces the demand for legal services, thereby reducing the price of same.
If justice requires rounding up investors, then the society of laws is already on it's deathbed.
That doesn't follow. Participating in the legal system has always had a price, and sometimes people cannot afford to get the justice they deserve. That is a fact of life, and has always been the case. It's not necessarily a bad thing, because it also prevents a lot of frivolous lawsuits for trivial sums (there is, of course, a venue for low value lawsuits--small claims court--but there, since you cannot hire a lawyer to represent you, you must pay with your time). If anyone could proceed with a major lawsuit for free, the system would be choked with people hoping to squeeze a dime out of anybody with money.
It also does a great injustice to anyone who probably should prevail but is not certain to by creating a legal services bubble.
Such people aren't affected by this. So they're really no worse off than they were before.
It also has the unfortunate effect of encouraging 'sure thing' lawsuits that should NOT prevail. For example, the RIAA threaten and settle model. They are sure to get many settlements (since they demand less than the cost to even begin fighting the suits).
RIAA doesn't need this. They have deep pockets. And if they're really making less money through settlement than it would cost to fight the lawsuit, then they're not likely to get any investors now, are they? The only reason to invest in a lawsuit would be with the hope of making a profit through either a large settlement or judgment.
But the people who COULD use this are those who want to, say, countersue RIAA for harassment, or filing false claims. Normally, RIAA could just weather the storm and outlast their opponents, who have limited resources. But faced with the proposition of a lawsuit that could potentially drag on and cost them serious money, they're more likely to simply settle and be done with it, especially if the merits of the case weigh strongly against them.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this law change the punishment for the crime for which the criminal was convicted? Yes, it does. Is the punishment greater than that applied at conviction? Yes, it is. Are these two changes relevant to the law annexed to the crime when committed? Yes, they are.
Again, the prohibition against ex post facto laws only applies to when the law was PASSED, and only if it's a different punishment for the same offense. If the law had been amended to extend the sentence for a sex crime, the new sentence could not apply to people previously convicted under the old law. However, this is a separate law entirely. In order to be committed under this statute, the government needs to show to a judge's satisfaction that a person qualifies under the law to be held in custody. Specifically, that person must be 1) already in federal custody for a sex offense, and 2) likely to be a danger if released. Any person who can be shown to meet these two qualifications can be held under the new law, regardless of the specific crime for which you are in custody. It's the same as if the government sought to keep someone in custody because he had developed schizophrenia or some other mental illness for which you can be held in custody under a civil statute. You may not like the conditions, but calling it an ex post facto law shows you don't really understand what the term means and what it ACTUALLY applies to. I'll give you a hint: nowhere in the Supreme Court decision, or even in the arguments, was the possibility even raised of this law being invalid under the ex post facto clause.
Also, you're talking out your ass about parole and fighting, etc. These are new violations of existing laws and they get new punishments.
Well, no. You can violate your probation based on some activity that is otherwise completely legal. For example, drinking while on probation for a drunk driving conviction, or entering a school while on probation for child molestation. Your punishment is increased for the original crime, not the new violation specifically. And as far as starting a fight in prison, you don't need to be tried and convicted to be sent to solitary as an enhancement to your existing punishment. That is a power authorized to the warden by the legislature, and it is solely up to his discretion how to administer it. You don't get an appeal from his decision. In fact, "starting a fight" isn't even necessarily a crime. It's not illegal to use a racist epithet against someone to his face, but if it's in an attempt to incite prison violence, then it can be punished regardless. The point of all of this is that punishments CAN and ARE increased after conviction based on events subsequent to the conviction. And anyway, this is all irrelevant, because once again (and please try to understand this) ex post facto only deals with the passage of new laws, not the subsequent application of existing ones. The closest thing to what you're describing is double jeopardy, which again, doesn't apply here anyway because it's not a second punishment for the same offense (and other court decisions have specifically held that to be the case, so don't even try).
No? What are "sex offenders", then, if not a group of people? It is a classing mechanism, is it not? Can you tell if you are in the class? Yes, certainly you can. Can you tell if you're not in the class? Yes, again, easily. So you're wrong again. Must not be your day, pal.
Stop and think about how foolish you sound here. Under that logic, "criminals" is a class of people, and you can't pass a law that puts them in jail. Also, you're being disingenuous in not quoting the rest of the paragraph where I specifically state that "sex offenders" doesn't count, because ANYONE could potentially be convicted of a sex crime. A bill of attainder would be, for example, a law that makes it a crime to be named "David Johnson" or to live at 123 Main St. in Chicago. Laws that are based on spec
Sorry, no. "Ex post facto" has nothing to do with increasing the punishment after conviction. It refers specifically to declaring something illegal, then prosecuting somebody under that law based on conduct that occurred before the law was passed. Regardless, punishment is increased after conviction and sentencing all the time. Violate the terms of your probation? Straight to the slammer. Start a fight in prison? You get sent to solitary. And so on.
Let's address some of the other things you may be misinformed about. This is not a bill of attainder, because it doesn't address specific people or groups of people. And no, the "group" of people who are in prison doesn't count, because potentially ANYBODY could be in prison for some other crime. If the bill stated that it only applied to black people, or people named Steve, then it would not be permissible. It's also (arguably) not a due process violation, because since it is a civil punishment and not a criminal one, the standard is lower than what is necessary to convict a person of a crime and send him to prison. You still need to convince a judge under this law, so there is still a due process issue. But the Supreme Court specifically did not address that in this case.
What's at issue here is ultimately whether the United States, given the authority to imprison somebody for a crime, can indefinitely extend that time under a civil statute based on a showing to a judge that it is necessary. This is not legally any different from the authority to put somebody in solitary confinement, or deny access to privileges based on behavior. I'm not comfortable with the ruling in this case, and I agree with Justices Thomas and Scalia that this is an inappropriate extension of government power. But please get your facts and legal terminology straight before going off half-cocked based on your limited legal understanding.
Huh? That wasn't it at all, but now that you point it out, it is sort of a strange coincidence...
Of course, some postings might even be tortious.
The Israeli Supreme Court ruled this week that there is no civil procedure to reveal the identity of users behind an IP address, and that until such procedure shall be legislated, all internet postings, even torturous, may remain anonymous.
The occasional posting may well be tortuous, but the vast majority of postings on the Internet are torturous. Check out MySpace and Facebook to see what I mean.
...I'm in my single digits (and I'm not talking about the number of partners).
That may be the best euphemism for masturbation I've ever heard. It was even worth reading through your nauseatingly detailed description of your chode for.
Best. RPG Game. Ever.
That reminds me... I need to head down to the ATM machine and punch in my PIN number so I can select the amount of cash that I need on the LCD display.
(Incidentally, I note that Idle still has a 20 character wide comment input box. I guess the CSS style sheet must be screwed up.)
"we don't do that. The patent says X, we don't do X, therefore go away, sue someone else, it's not relevant for us."
"Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds."
1) You weren't granted the "right to pursue happiness".
2) That "right" isn't mentioned in the United States Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence states that "the pursuit of happiness" is one of the inalienable Rights endowed to men by their Creator. The Declaration of Independence, however, carries very little legal weight in itself. Anyway, the government doesn't really give a damn about how happy you are. You may be born with the right to pursue happiness, but ain't nothin' says you're entitled to actually find it.
And even if there were a Constitutional right to "pursue happiness", your legal reasoning is faulty. It is well established that businesses have the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason, except on the basis of discrimination against a protected class of people. And phone hackers most certainly do not fall into any such class.
Well, they should have no problem at all finding the mountain wampus now. I just hope the project doesn't get canceled when they run low on smithore.
I find it amazing that people can stare right at numbers and come up with contorted reasoning why the numbers can't possibly say what they actually say. Try taking a look at the study. You will find that, of the accidents in this time period, only 1% were the result of driver inattention. That means that, for 99% of all accidents, there was some other identifiable cause. And of the 1%, only 10% were related to cell phone use. That means that the other 90% were explained by some other factor. It's not like they just look at these accidents, and if they can't figure out the cause write down "unknown" and move on.
So, again, please use your half a brain and think about this. Even if there were somehow TEN TIMES as many actual accidents as were reported that were caused by cell phone use, that still wouldn't be a statistically significant number of accidents if you're trying to detect a year to year trend. Even if it were twenty or thirty times higher, it still would be hard to establish a trend. This is exactly what the current study shows--that there is no significant change in accident rates with the passage of cell phone laws.
If you truly believe that cell phone accidents are under-reported by a factor large enough to matter statistically, well, I'd like to see some numbers backing that contention up. But you can't--all you have is anecdotal evidence and your poor half a brain. The same half a brain that makes it "obvious" that cell phone use while driving is dangerous also apparently makes it "obvious" that the numbers MUST be lying. It's kind of like a religion to you, isn't it?
Forget the "studies" that result in cute sound bites like "talking on a cell phone is like driving drunk". Let's look at some good, hard numbers: DRIVER DISTRACTIONS AND INATTENTION DATA SUMMARY
The key info is on page 5. From January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2002 in California, there were 491,083 accidents. Of those, cell phones were only considered a factor in 611 of them. That works out to about 0.1% of all accidents. Even if we (generously) assume such accidents are somehow under-reported by a factor of ten (which is extremely unlikely, since driver inattention was only considered a factor in 1% of all accidents in that time period), that's no more than 1% of all accidents. That's well within the margin of error for year to year fluctuations. There's no way a ban on cell phone use in cars could have any statistically significant effect on accident numbers.
"But, but, I've see people on cell phones who were bad drivers!" Yeah, and I've seen plenty of bad drivers who weren't on cell phones. Does cell phone usage cause bad driving? I don't know. Maybe bad drivers are more likely to use cell phones. But do cell phones cause accidents? The numbers just don't support that conclusion.
the Delta Works and the Afsluitdijk
I've heard of some crazy Scandinavian names, but come on. That's just somebody banging on the keyboard. Next you're going to tell me about the famed Swedish Lkajadsfglkn.
Maybe so. I probably should have been clearer, though, and specified that by "mathematicians" I meant people who were profoundly gifted with mathematical skill, much like Grigory Perelman. I have known several people like this, and the behavior I describe is universal among them. I spoke to woman who had dated one for a long time, and when we she mentioned he was just such a mathematical genius I immediately was able to describe his personality to her with near perfect accuracy. She said it was like I knew him personally, when I'd never met the man in my life.
So, is my sample size too small to draw general conclusions? Probably, but I was just speaking as to my experience. And in my experience, the similarities between the mathematical geniuses I have known (or known of) are as striking as how different they are from other types of people. I don't find Perelman's behavior--or his presumptive motivations for such behavior--surprising in the least.
This is a universal affliction among mathematicians I've known. They tend to look at the world mathematically, and aren't really able to understand things they can't reduce to an equation. This leads to a very black and white view of the world, where things must be a certain way, and anything that doesn't fall into that worldview is just wrong. Everything that people do must have a rational reason, and if they can't find one they will construct a reason that seems rational to them--regardless of how simplistic it is, or how dim a view of their fellow human beings it leads them to.
Mathematicians, by and large, tend to be very unhappy people in my experience. Not all of them, of course. Some mathematicians have a certain "spark" that allows them to abandon mathematics temporarily and give themselves over to the pleasure of an interpersonal relationship; but even so it is still against their nature to do so, and they will always slip back into the comfort of a mathematical outlook sooner or later.
I suspect that extraordinary skill in mathematics is not the cause of such a personality, but rather they are both common effects of some psychological variation that simply causes such people to perceive the world in a particular way.
Freedom is slavery, eh?
And apparently in your case, ignorance is strength.
Oligopolies are perfectly capable of being formed in a free market economy. A free market refers to the lack of governmental intervention except in cases of force or fraud. An oligopoly is a market segment (whether in a free market, a socialist economy, or even anarchy) that is dominated by a small group of entities. The two concepts are not incompatible, or even comparable. Saying "it's not a free market, it's an oligopoly" is a non-sequitur. It's kind of like saying "it's not a car, it's blue".
I think you may not be clear on what "free market economy" actually means. A free market economy requires a certain level of structure. The unauthorized taking of property by means such as fraud, theft, or extortion must be illegal and punishable by the government. Contracts must be enforceable by some means, either through the courts or through private governing bodies. And such laws must be applied equally and fairly to all citizens of a society. Without this fundamental framework, you don't have a free marked economy--you have anarchy.
Democracy has nothing to do with a free market economy. People are free to vote for or not vote for laws that detract from the freedom of the market, just as kings or dictators can enact or not enact the same laws. Democracy is merely the process of a society deciding how it runs itself, not how it's actually run. A free market economy is just as compatible with democracy as a socialist command economy is.
If they didn't get you on the back end, they could just charge you more up front to buy the phone, then amortize the up front cost through lower monthly bills, until in the end you pay the same amount. That way, they could even offer "no termination fee!" But I'm sure somebody would still get pissed at call it deceptive business practices. It's a free market, and they can charge anything they like. This is a total non-story.
Please, Slashdot, can we have a way to filter out stories by submitter? I don't think I've ever seen a story from "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property" that doesn't irritate me with its smug sanctimony and total irrelevance. Personally, I don't believe in imaginary news.
If that's what passes for funny in Britain these days, then I won't worry about bringing any Benadryl on my next trip there.
Try actually searching for those terms. It's the title of an essay satirizing Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Biblical literalism. Not so weird, really, in context.
This is two monumentally stupid articles I've seen from CNET UK in as many days (the other one being the power plugs article from yesterday). If Slashdot continues to post them, I think we should insist on a tag just for that site so we can filter them out.
Oh, well that TOTALLY justifies the random assault on and murder of innocent bystanders, wanton destruction of property, and terrorizing of an entire city.
Time to break out the Stone of Triumph!
So 'for all' was never intended to include the poor or indigent?
That's not what I said. I said that in some cases, some people will not be able to afford to litigate cases they could probably win. Having these sort of investors helps to rectify that situation.
Note that I never claimed that legal services should be free, just that it shouldn't require investors to cover the costs.
In most cases, it doesn't. In small claims court, you can't have a lawyer. And in lawsuits that involve great sums of money, you generally can't afford NOT to have the best legal representation that you can afford. As a litigant, you often have the option of proceeding pro se, or hiring much cheaper legal counsel to represent you. But this is generally accepted to be a false savings. And if you artificially limit the price of legal representation, you also artificially limit the quality. Simple economics.
Supposedly, lawyers are officers of the court and so legally bound to head off the frivolous and trivial lawsuits themselves. They are SUPPOSED to be sanctioned if they fail to do so.
They do. That's one reason why you're required to have a lawyer represent you in lawsuits in Federal court. And a natural result of having good legal representation cost as much as it does is that the frivolous cases that have no chance of winning tend not to be brought. Also, most lawyers do not want to have their reputations sullied by bringing numerous meritless cases, thereby potentially opening themselves up to such sanctions.
Sure they are. Bubbles tend to raise costs. They might have been able to afford justice if not for inflated prices, but unless they're practically a sure thing, they won't be able to attract 'investors'.
You could also reason that this will bring down the cost of legal representation, as large corporations with bottomless war chests are no longer able to simply pay for a team of lawyers to drag out the case until the plaintiff runs out of money. It will end up being much cheaper to simply settle the case quickly. That reduces the demand for legal services, thereby reducing the price of same.
If justice requires rounding up investors, then the society of laws is already on it's deathbed.
That doesn't follow. Participating in the legal system has always had a price, and sometimes people cannot afford to get the justice they deserve. That is a fact of life, and has always been the case. It's not necessarily a bad thing, because it also prevents a lot of frivolous lawsuits for trivial sums (there is, of course, a venue for low value lawsuits--small claims court--but there, since you cannot hire a lawyer to represent you, you must pay with your time). If anyone could proceed with a major lawsuit for free, the system would be choked with people hoping to squeeze a dime out of anybody with money.
It also does a great injustice to anyone who probably should prevail but is not certain to by creating a legal services bubble.
Such people aren't affected by this. So they're really no worse off than they were before.
It also has the unfortunate effect of encouraging 'sure thing' lawsuits that should NOT prevail. For example, the RIAA threaten and settle model. They are sure to get many settlements (since they demand less than the cost to even begin fighting the suits).
RIAA doesn't need this. They have deep pockets. And if they're really making less money through settlement than it would cost to fight the lawsuit, then they're not likely to get any investors now, are they? The only reason to invest in a lawsuit would be with the hope of making a profit through either a large settlement or judgment.
But the people who COULD use this are those who want to, say, countersue RIAA for harassment, or filing false claims. Normally, RIAA could just weather the storm and outlast their opponents, who have limited resources. But faced with the proposition of a lawsuit that could potentially drag on and cost them serious money, they're more likely to simply settle and be done with it, especially if the merits of the case weigh strongly against them.