if Gore was in office, the 9/11 attacks would have continued just the same
I see your hypothetical and raise you this counter-hypothetical: If Gore were in office in 2001, the 9/11 attacks would have been thwarted. That's because Gore would not have been preoccupied with Iraq, as Bush was in 2001.
Right, but you DO have to prove ACTUAL damage. And you have to show that the defendant's actions were the cause of your damage.
Both of those points are valid. However, grandparent was not making either of those points, and I was responding to his argument only. And of course, the legal standard, both for actual damage and for cause of damage, is what I said it is, preponderance of evidence.
Of course, if you'd RTFA, you'd know that it makes no mention of beaches, so the rest of your post is pure nonsense.
Which has not been done yet (Definitely not to the legal level of proof).
Here's a surprise for you: The legal level of proof for civil actions is a preponderance of evidence. It's a lower standard than the proof beyond reasonable doubt required for criminal prosecutions, which you must be thinking of.
Then you have to prove that the automakers are deliberatley causing Global Warming.
Er, no. Just as you don't have to prove that someone deliberately ran into you with their car to collect damages from them. Intent doesn't enter into the question of whether the case has merit (it might factor into the damage award if the plaintiff wins).
But verifiability is ultimately a human concern anyway, not a tech one.
That's true only as long as there are no design requirements for verifiability. But if it's a human concern, then the humans who wrote the requirements should have included verifiability, making it a tech concern.
Well, that's purely a semantic argument. To almost anyone, "supposed to" implies that there is a mandate from a higher authority (in this context: Federal government, the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, take your pick). I'm not buying it.
Just because it is voluntary doesn't mean it is contrary to the principles of states' rights. The whole idea of the national popular vote deciding who is president debases the value of the individual states.
I'd say the first sentence is a truism. What I wrote follows directly from that. Your second sentence, however, is a non sequitur.
According to some people it is desirable. Not according to me. Again, it goes back to the fact that the national popular vote does not factor in the states' right have electors vote for the candidates they choose.
It doesn't matter what you find is desirable. You are advocating what "the author of this idea should focus on", yet that is going to be determined by what he finds desirable and what he thinks is achievable.
There's NOTHING wrong with the electoral college. There IS something wrong with your education, since you clearly don't understand why its a good thing to have in place.
I would think something is wrong with an education that so indoctrinated a person to believe "X is good" that they would shout down any contrary opinion with a statement like that, instead of providing a coherent argument supporting their view.
How so? Who is twisting the States' arms? What particular right is being abrogated by this? It's only a proposal, and legislatures are free to either adopt it or reject it.
The author of this idea should focus on convincing states to implement a better system for assigning the votes of their electoral college reps.
No. The reason most states have a "winner takes all" rule is that it maximizes the state's influence in the national election. Few legislaturees are going to want to change that, and even if they did, their constituents won't be happy.
The theory here is that there is at least some motivation --not universal, but maybe just widespread enough -- for avoiding outcomes that run counter to the popular vote. This approach guarantees that either (1) a state's choice of electors will be unaffected by the legislation, if not enough states enact the proposal, or (2) the state's choice of electors will only be affected in a way that causes the popular vote winner to be elected. (1) is simply the status quo, and (2) is enough of a desirable end that some legislatures may be swayed.
Therefore, the author is correct in focusing on an approach that actually has a chance of succeeding and that (if successful) will mathematically guarantee that his goal is met, rather than focusing on approaches with less chance of passing and no guarantee of the desired effect.
The public is supposed to vote for their representatives in state government, and then their state government is supposed to choose electors who then choose the President.
Last time I looked, the Constitution said "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors..." According to Wikipedia, in the 1789 election, 6 states used some form of popular vote and 4 used other means to choose electors (New York failed to choose electors, and two other states were not eligible because they hadn't ratified the Constitution). History does not support your statement.
Maybe its unfortunate that the article used the word "compact". I don't remember that word in earlier descriptions of the idea (yes, the article is reporting old news). In reality, no "compact" is required. Any state's legislature is empowered to determine how that state's electors are chosen. So any state legislature may pass a law that says the electors will be chosen in the manner described (including the trigger that enough other state legislatures pass similar legislation), without entering into a compact with any state.
I think the word "compact" implies something more, namely that states entering a compact would not be able to withdraw without the consent of the other states in the compact. I think this legislation fails that test (IANAL so it may not be a valid legal test, but it sounds reasonable).
I don't accept the whole "electoral college forces candidates to campaign everywhere" argument, particularly in the age of mass media. All those local visits really accomplish is the photo op for the candidate and a chance to pretend to care, but I just never bought the false piety they were selling. I don't want voters to vote for a candidate just because that candidate paid a visit to their town. I'd rather have a candidate stand up and tell the country plainly what he or she will do for (or to) it, than spend an entire year posturing like that.
I, on the other hand, have been watching *more* movies that I really don't care about.
I can't imagine that becoming a problem for me, as there are so many (reputedly) good movies I haven't seen. Mostly I will only rent movies I haven't seen before. I mix up serious movies with "fluff" to lighten things up; for example this week I watched "Slaughterhouse Five" and "Dodgeball", while "Syriana" is next. I'm looking forward to "Seven Samurai", "Pi: Faith in Chaos", "Ran", and "Duel", among others. That last one is the only movie in my queue that I've seen previously, but that was decades ago on TV, before we knew who Spielberg was, and I haven't seen it since then. I probably wouldn't look for it or any of the other classics at the video store, since my tendency there is to just walk through the recent releases section until I find two or three movies from the past year that I haven't seen yet.
First, let me say that "copyright" isn't a right, in my opinion: it is a privilege. So while I agree that "copyright holders do not have a right to force me to view it the way they want me to", that isn't really the point, because to some extent they do have the power.
I haven't read the ruling itself, just the article. However, I doubt that this ruling applies to you exercising whatever control you are capable of over watching a DVD that you own (fast-forwarding, rewinding, omitting scenes, etc.). I think it's unlikely to apply to a hypothetical private contract in which one person edits a DVD to another's liking, provided that the editing is done from a legitimate copy owned by the second person (the article wasn't clear on this point, and circumvention of copy protection is a separate issue that I don't think is in the scope of the ruling). This may just be limited to the production of edited DVDs for public sale.
You really would have to be a Democrat to come up with California's phoney "deregulation" scam, and they were...But it's probably just ignorance and corruption, both of which the Democrats in California have honed to a fine art.
Actually, it was a bipartisan legislative act, signed by a Republican governor. And yes, they were total asses, all of them.
The new governer didn't change anything. The de-regulation was rolled back and the crisis ended long before he was elected. This might be interesting to you: California Recall.
Slashdot Mirror
I see your hypothetical and raise you this counter-hypothetical: If Gore were in office in 2001, the 9/11 attacks would have been thwarted. That's because Gore would not have been preoccupied with Iraq, as Bush was in 2001.
Both of those points are valid. However, grandparent was not making either of those points, and I was responding to his argument only. And of course, the legal standard, both for actual damage and for cause of damage, is what I said it is, preponderance of evidence.
Of course, if you'd RTFA, you'd know that it makes no mention of beaches, so the rest of your post is pure nonsense.
My intuition says you're right: California is not looking for money from the auto manufacturers. They are just looking for behavioral changes.
Here's a surprise for you: The legal level of proof for civil actions is a preponderance of evidence. It's a lower standard than the proof beyond reasonable doubt required for criminal prosecutions, which you must be thinking of.
Then you have to prove that the automakers are deliberatley causing Global Warming.
Er, no. Just as you don't have to prove that someone deliberately ran into you with their car to collect damages from them. Intent doesn't enter into the question of whether the case has merit (it might factor into the damage award if the plaintiff wins).
IANAL, but I have sat on a jury in a civil case.
They orbit each other, or rather a common point between them. The type of path you describe would not be stable.
Worst...analogy...ever!
No, I think he mistook a Simpsons reference for a Will and Grace reference.
That's true only as long as there are no design requirements for verifiability. But if it's a human concern, then the humans who wrote the requirements should have included verifiability, making it a tech concern.
Ah, but I gave my reasons. If you don't care to challenge those reasons then I guess they will stand uncontested. Thank you.
Well, that's purely a semantic argument. To almost anyone, "supposed to" implies that there is a mandate from a higher authority (in this context: Federal government, the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, take your pick). I'm not buying it.
I'd say the first sentence is a truism. What I wrote follows directly from that. Your second sentence, however, is a non sequitur.
According to some people it is desirable. Not according to me. Again, it goes back to the fact that the national popular vote does not factor in the states' right have electors vote for the candidates they choose.
It doesn't matter what you find is desirable. You are advocating what "the author of this idea should focus on", yet that is going to be determined by what he finds desirable and what he thinks is achievable.
I would think something is wrong with an education that so indoctrinated a person to believe "X is good" that they would shout down any contrary opinion with a statement like that, instead of providing a coherent argument supporting their view.
How so? Who is twisting the States' arms? What particular right is being abrogated by this? It's only a proposal, and legislatures are free to either adopt it or reject it.
The author of this idea should focus on convincing states to implement a better system for assigning the votes of their electoral college reps.
No. The reason most states have a "winner takes all" rule is that it maximizes the state's influence in the national election. Few legislaturees are going to want to change that, and even if they did, their constituents won't be happy.
The theory here is that there is at least some motivation --not universal, but maybe just widespread enough -- for avoiding outcomes that run counter to the popular vote. This approach guarantees that either (1) a state's choice of electors will be unaffected by the legislation, if not enough states enact the proposal, or (2) the state's choice of electors will only be affected in a way that causes the popular vote winner to be elected. (1) is simply the status quo, and (2) is enough of a desirable end that some legislatures may be swayed.
Therefore, the author is correct in focusing on an approach that actually has a chance of succeeding and that (if successful) will mathematically guarantee that his goal is met, rather than focusing on approaches with less chance of passing and no guarantee of the desired effect.
Last time I looked, the Constitution said "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors..." According to Wikipedia, in the 1789 election, 6 states used some form of popular vote and 4 used other means to choose electors (New York failed to choose electors, and two other states were not eligible because they hadn't ratified the Constitution). History does not support your statement.
I think the word "compact" implies something more, namely that states entering a compact would not be able to withdraw without the consent of the other states in the compact. I think this legislation fails that test (IANAL so it may not be a valid legal test, but it sounds reasonable).
I don't accept the whole "electoral college forces candidates to campaign everywhere" argument, particularly in the age of mass media. All those local visits really accomplish is the photo op for the candidate and a chance to pretend to care, but I just never bought the false piety they were selling. I don't want voters to vote for a candidate just because that candidate paid a visit to their town. I'd rather have a candidate stand up and tell the country plainly what he or she will do for (or to) it, than spend an entire year posturing like that.
I can't imagine that becoming a problem for me, as there are so many (reputedly) good movies I haven't seen. Mostly I will only rent movies I haven't seen before. I mix up serious movies with "fluff" to lighten things up; for example this week I watched "Slaughterhouse Five" and "Dodgeball", while "Syriana" is next. I'm looking forward to "Seven Samurai", "Pi: Faith in Chaos", "Ran", and "Duel", among others. That last one is the only movie in my queue that I've seen previously, but that was decades ago on TV, before we knew who Spielberg was, and I haven't seen it since then. I probably wouldn't look for it or any of the other classics at the video store, since my tendency there is to just walk through the recent releases section until I find two or three movies from the past year that I haven't seen yet.
So, got a link?
I haven't read the ruling itself, just the article. However, I doubt that this ruling applies to you exercising whatever control you are capable of over watching a DVD that you own (fast-forwarding, rewinding, omitting scenes, etc.). I think it's unlikely to apply to a hypothetical private contract in which one person edits a DVD to another's liking, provided that the editing is done from a legitimate copy owned by the second person (the article wasn't clear on this point, and circumvention of copy protection is a separate issue that I don't think is in the scope of the ruling). This may just be limited to the production of edited DVDs for public sale.
Actually, it was a bipartisan legislative act, signed by a Republican governor. And yes, they were total asses, all of them.
The new governer didn't change anything. The de-regulation was rolled back and the crisis ended long before he was elected. This might be interesting to you: California Recall.
This is easy to undo? Well, maybe if they discovered oil there, we'd find out.
You should get extra credit for the Alice's Restaurant reference. Me? I was arrested for littering once...oh, and creating a nuisance.
Yes it is.
Aren't you a little out of date?