Not really. That's why most of the world uses it. Because not using it has really serious downsides - you can get bankrupted by lawsuits even if you win every single one of them. Also, you may be deterred from starting a lawsuit you'll clearly win if your lawyer will cost more than the amount of money you're suing for. (Let's say the evil government completely unlawfully seizes your $500 in cash, and you'll be spending $600 on a lawyer and several hours of your time to get it back, would you sue to get your money back?)
it can readily make it impossible to ever dare sue anybody richer than yourself even if you have a very strong case since they can afford beter lawyers, bury you in paperwork and even if you were genuinely the injured party you could end up just paying a fortune in fees if you fail to convince a jury.
Well, yeah. It sucks to lose a case. That's why you should make sure your case is strong before you start it.
Also, you can only go bankrupt. If the other side decides to blow twenty million dollars on their defense, they can try to collect that afterwards, but most likely, they won't. You can't get water from a rock.
Citizen versus citizen - each pay their own. Corp versus corp - each pay their own.
Given the huge disparity in wealth between citizens, I'd say no. Bigger corp (or richer citizen) could easily bombard someone they don't like with lawsuits that, while weak, aren't clearly frivolous and hence drain the other partys funds. Just imagine Mr. Trump suing some average Joe and blowing $1M on lawyers, while Joe spends only one tenth of that on his defense, and wins. Mr. Trump loses some pocket change (to him), Joe average is in debt forever. Or Microsoft or Apple suing Joe's one man software corp.
The legal system is supposed to be a way to get legal rulings, not an economic club against economically weaker parties.
without, of course, having any cash to hire a lawyer with.
And even if you do have money to hire a lawyer, you still won't get the lawyers fees back.
(Another reason why I prefer loser pays. Seizing things unlawfully would actually cost the authorities quite a bit of money and end this nonsense really quickly.)
Alternatively, that benefits large companies who can when through sheer will and money and add another burden to the loser as well as letting the company recoup its costs
No. Simply because you can't get money from a rock. If you sue a large company, lose, and bankrupt yourself in the process, the company can try as much as they want to "recoup" money from you. It's just not there. (Something like that happened to McDonald's in the UK, trying to silence two penniless critics with a libel suit. They ended up with a long, expensive, messy lawsuit and unable to recoup any of their costs).
add another burden to the loser
Well, then maybe you should settle if you think you're about to lose? And if you get sued and win the case, why should you have to bear the costs for being the right?
I just want to know what the energy source is for the large scale simulation we're in.
The system the simulation is running on is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics and hence runs on arbitrarily small amounts of power that are continuously recycled. It's also running really, really slowly, but we don't notice since we exist in simulated time.
The point is Elon Musk is believing into a grand design scheme if he believes we are living into a computer simulation or game
It's not a grand design scheme. The computer running the simulation could have assembled spontaneously after 10^10^y years of a bunch of silicon and other elements just sitting around.
Anything that can happen by design can also happen by random coincidence. It might just be really, really improbable and therefore might take quite a while to occur. However, if observation time can be made arbitrarily long, it will occur eventually.
If the universe were being run right now in debug mode with frequent pauses and on-the-fly bugfix-and-continue changes... would you know? There'd be no evidence in-universe after all.
Well... that depends. A program could certainly detect if memory locations are changed behind its back (e.g. by checksumming memory ranges). But then again, the entity doing the debugging could simply adapt the stored checksums to match.
> the distinct feeling that you've never ever had this experience before
It's "jamais-vu". When you experience an objectively familiar situation, experience or event as something completely new.
> The only possible explanation if we're in a simulation would be that the "real world" has completely different physics than ours.
Well yes. It could have more spatial or temporal dimensions. Or no laws of thermodynamics. Fun.
> One would think with a simulation our size running for this long would have produced more than a few noticeable bugs,
The accumulation of the effects of such bugs and calculation errors is called entropy. The effect of the systems limited memory is called conservation of energy.
Just as older explainers said the world was created by gods, leaving open the question of how the gods came about.
The latter question is pointless if the "outside" world is assumed to be timeless, e.g. "before" and "after" cannot be distinguished, and hence no causality can be established. (Note: If the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to this "outside" world, it is essentially timeless.)
I bought a cheap W10M phone recently, but I don't think I'll use it.
While price and hardware are appealing, the operating system isn't, especially the fact that everything is tied to having a MS account and any synching runs over MS' cloud, even if I just want to get my address book to my local pc (connected to the phone by USB). I don't want my contacts in the cloud. It's no one's business what doctors I am in contact with, etc.
Simple. You determine the more profitable market, and remove any and all of your assets from the other country. They can try fining your company, but what good is that if all of your assets are out of their legal reach?
If you pop hot on a drug test for a drug you're legally prescribed, you show your employer your prescription or a doctor's note.
Sorry. I live where prescriptions are confidential information and none of any employers business. The only information the employer gets is whether person in question is allowed to perform a particular job or not.
There are drug tests that can tell illicit cocaine from the stuff used in ophtalmology, heroin from opioids used for medical pain management, and illicit stimulants from their medically precribed cousins?
I always thought drug tests only considered chemistry, not the legal aspects.
A quote is a number. Of units of currency. Or "Not possible.". 'Problematic' and 'impractical' are merely terms used during the negotiation to justify the number being higher than the requestor expects.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. That's why most of the world uses it. Because not using it has really serious downsides - you can get bankrupted by lawsuits even if you win every single one of them. Also, you may be deterred from starting a lawsuit you'll clearly win if your lawyer will cost more than the amount of money you're suing for. (Let's say the evil government completely unlawfully seizes your $500 in cash, and you'll be spending $600 on a lawyer and several hours of your time to get it back, would you sue to get your money back?)
it can readily make it impossible to ever dare sue anybody richer than yourself even if you have a very strong case since they can afford beter lawyers, bury you in paperwork and even if you were genuinely the injured party you could end up just paying a fortune in fees if you fail to convince a jury.
Well, yeah. It sucks to lose a case. That's why you should make sure your case is strong before you start it.
Also, you can only go bankrupt. If the other side decides to blow twenty million dollars on their defense, they can try to collect that afterwards, but most likely, they won't. You can't get water from a rock.
Citizen versus citizen - each pay their own. Corp versus corp - each pay their own.
Given the huge disparity in wealth between citizens, I'd say no. Bigger corp (or richer citizen) could easily bombard someone they don't like with lawsuits that, while weak, aren't clearly frivolous and hence drain the other partys funds. Just imagine Mr. Trump suing some average Joe and blowing $1M on lawyers, while Joe spends only one tenth of that on his defense, and wins. Mr. Trump loses some pocket change (to him), Joe average is in debt forever. Or Microsoft or Apple suing Joe's one man software corp.
The legal system is supposed to be a way to get legal rulings, not an economic club against economically weaker parties.
And even if you do have money to hire a lawyer, you still won't get the lawyers fees back.
(Another reason why I prefer loser pays. Seizing things unlawfully would actually cost the authorities quite a bit of money and end this nonsense really quickly.)
I think France (and ancient Rome, to some extent) would like to have a word with you about their legal system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And in a "everyone pays their own costs" system you can be in the right, win the case, and still be bankrupt afterwards.
In such a system, a malicious (and well-funded) party can use lawsuits as an economic weapon.
That small offense would involve exorbitant fees for the loser.
Simple: If you *know* you're not going to win a case, you settle if this is cheaper than going through a lawsuit.
Legally, that is the case. And in a court, you'll get a legal decision.
No. Simply because you can't get money from a rock. If you sue a large company, lose, and bankrupt yourself in the process, the company can try as much as they want to "recoup" money from you. It's just not there. (Something like that happened to McDonald's in the UK, trying to silence two penniless critics with a libel suit. They ended up with a long, expensive, messy lawsuit and unable to recoup any of their costs).
add another burden to the loser
Well, then maybe you should settle if you think you're about to lose? And if you get sued and win the case, why should you have to bear the costs for being the right?
It doesn't do anything!
password ... bad. ... slightly less bad. ... 4000x less bad. ... They'll never guess that!
p@ssw0rd
pAsswOrd
pAswsOrd
If there is a non-zero probability for God coming into existence, then it will exist if the observation time can be made arbitrarily long.
If the probability for the existence of God is zero, it will not exist, regardless of the length of the observation time.
The system the simulation is running on is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics and hence runs on arbitrarily small amounts of power that are continuously recycled. It's also running really, really slowly, but we don't notice since we exist in simulated time.
They also restored it from backup two minutes ago. We didn't notice it, either.
That you don't get a high score if you're wiped out by an asteroid impact.
It's not a grand design scheme. The computer running the simulation could have assembled spontaneously after 10^10^y years of a bunch of silicon and other elements just sitting around.
Anything that can happen by design can also happen by random coincidence. It might just be really, really improbable and therefore might take quite a while to occur. However, if observation time can be made arbitrarily long, it will occur eventually.
Well ... that depends. A program could certainly detect if memory locations are changed behind its back (e.g. by checksumming memory ranges). But then again, the entity doing the debugging could simply adapt the stored checksums to match.
WTB: JTAG adapter for the universe.
> the distinct feeling that you've never ever had this experience before It's "jamais-vu". When you experience an objectively familiar situation, experience or event as something completely new.
Well yes. It could have more spatial or temporal dimensions. Or no laws of thermodynamics. Fun.
> One would think with a simulation our size running for this long would have produced more than a few noticeable bugs,
The accumulation of the effects of such bugs and calculation errors is called entropy. The effect of the systems limited memory is called conservation of energy.
The latter question is pointless if the "outside" world is assumed to be timeless, e.g. "before" and "after" cannot be distinguished, and hence no causality can be established. (Note: If the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to this "outside" world, it is essentially timeless.)
For Earthlings, the Martian atmosphere is a fairly good vacuum.
Well, you need yet-another-account to do anything, and give MS all your data so you can sync things between your phone and your PC.
My ancient Nokia E6 can transfer contacts over to my PC via USB or bluetooth. My brand new Lumia 550 can't, it needs to go over the cloud. Wth?
While price and hardware are appealing, the operating system isn't, especially the fact that everything is tied to having a MS account and any synching runs over MS' cloud, even if I just want to get my address book to my local pc (connected to the phone by USB). I don't want my contacts in the cloud. It's no one's business what doctors I am in contact with, etc.
Simple. You determine the more profitable market, and remove any and all of your assets from the other country. They can try fining your company, but what good is that if all of your assets are out of their legal reach?
Sorry. I live where prescriptions are confidential information and none of any employers business. The only information the employer gets is whether person in question is allowed to perform a particular job or not.
I always thought drug tests only considered chemistry, not the legal aspects.
A quote is a number. Of units of currency. Or "Not possible.". 'Problematic' and 'impractical' are merely terms used during the negotiation to justify the number being higher than the requestor expects.
I'd like a quote for a time machine and a perpetual motion machine (first or second kind, their choice) then.