No, that's a terrible idea. Real "Loser pays"-type systems usually have the judge deciding who pays how much, based on things like, was this a reasonable action (even if you didn't win), did you introduce frivolous motions just to waste time and money, etc.
Pure loser-pays systems are no better than the status quo, because then small individuals daren't ever risk suing large organizations, because if they lose, they may end up owing millions in legal fees (since the big company can spend that much without breaking a sweat). You might say, "Well if they lose, then it was obviously a frivolous lawsuit," but that's plainly not true either.
I find it unlikely, but is this the same David Alan Grier -- the comedian -- who was on "In Living Color" and such? I haven't been able to find anything definitive yet, but I'm assuming it's just a coincidence.
The issue at hand isn't that we have to dumb down everything, but rather that the law has no sense of humor. It can't, if it's going to be fair and just.
This doesn't mean that a court can't look at something someone said and decide that it's not a true representation of their intent, but if it was as simple as saying, "Oh, that was just a joke," and the court having to take your word for it because, well, it's all in fun, right? Then people really could get away with heinous shit just by claiming that their stated intent was just a joke.
Heck, I've only had jury duty once (well, twice, but the first time I was a full-time student so they excused me). It was fun and enlightening; I even got to be jury foreman because everyone else started staring at the walls when it came time to pick one.
That was five years ago; I'm astonished they haven't called me up since, but I'm looking forward to it. It's gotten even better in L.A. county, since then; when I served, you had to sit in the pool room for 5 days or until you got called to serve on a panel. These days, you only have to go for something like 1 day, maybe 2, or until you get called to serve on a panel. Bring a good book with you and enjoy a day in different environs.
Please don't forget that it was the left leaning justices who gave your local officials the right to take your property if they deem it to be in the public interest.
Bullshit. Local governments have had the right to do this for centuries; don't tell me you've never heard of eminent domain before. What the Kelo decision did was lower the bar for using eminent domain. Before, only areas that qualified as "blight" (which was, unfortunately, a rather subjective term) could be seized under eminent domain. But they could still be seized and then sold to private developers under a "turn this into something beneficial" contract.
Now, the "blight" restriction is gone, but the seizing still has to be in the public interest. Yeah, it means rich people can have their property seized too, not just poor people. Of course, rich people have the money to fight this, so... in reality, not much has really changed.
At first I panicked and thought Kelo was much worse than it really is, but then I looked into it, and read up a bit on eminent domain.
If the Court would get back to what's actually WRITTEN down in the Constitution, combined with a clear understanding of the intent of the language and a sharp dose of common sense, and stop making things up just to suit their political or moral prejudices or to suit the new pressure group du jour, we would all be a lot better off.
Translation: If they would start interpreting the Constitution the way I want, I'd stop whining.
Where does the Constitution say anything about contributory copyright infringement? Nowhere. As a result, SCOTUS must resort to interpretation of both the Constitution and extant law in order to figure out whether something qualifies as constitutional or not. There's a long road and two hundred forty years of law and history between "the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" and "Corporations can be held liable if they promote copyright infringement via downloading."
Perhaps you could grace us with an answer to the Grokster question without relying on any document except the Constitution itself?
Yeah it's really easy to get to 60. But then it's like running into a wall once you get there because the only thing to do is instances which can take hours. And that's if you can find a group. Many classes just aren't considered special enough(like priests) or you're one of 50 other hunters looking for a group.
If you think that it's like "running into a wall" once you get to level 60, the problem is you, not the game. A finitely sized group of MMOG developers can only create a finite amount of content, and even average players can consume it more than ten times faster than it can be created. That's right: every hour you spend doing a quest translates to at least ten hours of developer, programmer, and artist time to create that quest. If the game is no longer interesting now that you've gone through all the content, then stop playing. I know, it's a crazy concept.
More serious suggestions: Level up new characters of different classes. (I myself have the long, LONG-term goal of having a level 60 character of every class. 60 warlock, 40 priest, 30 warrior, 21 paladin, 10 rogue...) Play the other faction. Do trade skills you haven't done yet. Explore the nooks and crannies of every zone. Run roleplaying events. There's a lot you can do besides grind a character to 60 and then sit in Ironforge all day hoping you can get in an UBRS raid:P
So true.
But at the same time, fairy tales can be comforting.
I'm a complete athiest, but I certainly didn't have the heart to tell my Mum while she lay on her deathbed that I thought her belief in an afterlife was delusional. I like to think that the hope of eternal happiness helped eased her passing.
When I'm in the same situation, my conviction that this life is all we've got will probably make it all that more painful.
I agree, for the most part; trying to strip those who currently believe (and are clearly not open to the idea that their beliefs are misguided, or are not in a place in their lives where such ideas are welcome) is pointless and, sometimes, cruel. I would never have suggested that you try to tell your mother to stop believing in the afterlife, and especially not when she's about to die!
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to foster a general atmosphere of rationalism and humanism. When healthy people in their 20s try to insist that Jesus loves me, despite his having been dead for two thousand years, I get a mite pissed off, and feel quite justified in telling them I think they're wrong. And I certainly have no problem with trying to convince society at large to promote rationalist, humanist ideas, instead of religious dogma.
(Wow, this is an old post. I'm only replying to it now because someone else replied to my post that you originally replied to.)
On the other hand, there are considerable unexplained phoenominae
(Just a nitpick, but you meant "phenomena." The singular is "phenomenon.")
The fact that we don't know everything does not justify making up explanations to fill in the gaps. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. I understand that people will often make up explanations in order to make themselves feel better, but trying to memorialize and institutionalize those explanations -- especially when better, rational explanations are already available -- is madness.
such that I'm not willing to take it as given that there is in fact nothing there.
Then I assume you have evidence (up to a reputable scientific standard) that provides answers for those unexplained phenomena? Because lacking evidence for the existence of something, how is it reasonable to claim that it exists?
Your statement can be rephrased thusly: "Since we don't know what it is, why shouldn't I assume there's some supernatural force at work?"
Further, I've encountered others who have confided similar experiences, despite otherwise fully appearing to be rational and skeptical individuals.
Argumentam ad numeram: The fallacy of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.
Perhaps when our understanding of biology can provide a complete and convincing explanation for such events[1], we might be old enough to abandon our fairy tales -- presuming, of course, they don't hold to them some truth.
I lack a complete understanding of these things, and I know that science in general does also -- but I am not going to fall back upon fairy tales in the meantime. The primary reason that people must embrace fairy tales is because they are taught from birth to fear the unknown and cling to whatever dogma their parents and society happen to teach them.
You can look at people of the 15th century, who believed that disease was caused by demons infesting your body, and then look at how pathology has given rational explanations for disease. But you can't look at phenomena still unexplained in the early 21st-century and think it's reasonable to assume there's a scientific explanation for those phenomena?
Some of these symptoms associated with these events are not entirely unlike those associated with some kinds of temporal lobe siezures -- but induced by a 3rd party without the use of probes or electromagnetic fields, and experienced near-exclusively by individuals with religious or spiritual leanings?
1. Are you sure it was induced by that third party? Maybe you were predisposed to have such an event occur, and your apparent belief in such things combined with the undoubted emotional fervor reached in such settings can set one off. It seems a more reasonable explanation than invoking magic. I would also ask, does everyone in those circumstances experience these seizures? Why is it that in controlled circumstances, with randomly selected test subjects, people such as this minister cannot cause this effect to occur any more or less frequently than anyone else can?
2. It is rather expected that people with religious/spiritual leanings are most likely to experience these things. The best biological hypothesis is that there's a region in human brains that does specifically this -- when people have a "religious experience," it's that region being highly active. Some people do not have this region strongly developed, and some do. Again, is magic really a better explanation for this? For thousands of years, certain cultures have known that if you dance and sing yourself into a frenzy, sometimes combined with taking
This is important because you can always tell by mechanical means if you are accelerating, but without a point of reference, you are unable to tell if you are moving at constant speed. (Gravity and circular motions are just accelerations)
More to the point, "speed" doesn't really have any meaning unless you're talking about your change in position relative to something else.
But we haven't been beaten at it. We built a tool to play it better -- it's not fundamentally different from inventing baseball, and then inventing a machine that can hurl baseballs at 500 miles per hour.
If we came across a species of dolphin that could beat us at chess, then yes, I'd say surprise was a valid reaction. But we built a machine for a specific task, and you're surprised that it's good at that task?
Yeah, but we invented chess. Running was around for hundreds of millions of years before humans showed up. Is it any surprise that we're (so far) the best species at a game we invented?:)
The fifth amendment guarantees ONLY that you will be compensated for such seizures, NOT that such seizures will not occur and NOT that such seizures must be purely for non-private benefit.
What?? The 5th Amendment says:
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Emphasis added. You might argue that it says nothing about taking private property for private use, but I would argue that such action is so against the very principles of private property that it needn't have been enumerated.
The argument here is whether seizing your private property and giving it to another private entity qualifies as "public use" because that person will pay more taxes than you. I certainly don't think it does; four Supreme Court justices agree. Unfortunately, it should have been at least five.
This is a terrible decision. Alas, there's no higher court; the only hope (short of eventual bloody revolution) is that another similar case comes along and SCOTUS reverses itself. Which is so unlikely as to be laughable. Bloody revolution, here we come!
I mean, why should the films switch focus onto Padame's children when Darth Vader, the focus of the first three films, is still alive, kicking, and doing things in the Star Wars universe?
Because out of order being, very important to many things is in the Star Wars universe.
Geesh, what's with Yoda's grammatical patterns anyway? Break me a fucking give.
One of the most brilliant people I know is a religious man. etc. etc.
Alas, people like him are a tiny, tiny minority. Your personal experience is all well and good, but this friend of yours is not statistically significant.
Humanity needs to start weaning itself off religion wherever possible. I'm not saying that your friend should give up religion (indeed, trying to get most adults to change their religious beliefs is futile at best), but frankly, aren't we as a society a little old for fairy tales?
Religion is only necessary for adults because they have been taught since childhood to depend upon it. There exist people whose belief in God, if removed, would turn them into (at best) degenerate sociopaths. At the same time, there are plenty of people who lose religion and remain perfectly healthy members of society.
We as a society should begin to wean ourselves from religious belief.
We (scientists) have long been running an uneasy gauntlet between those that want us represent their theological, political or personal beliefs while trying to find truth where it is and for what it represents.
Indiana Jones said it best: "Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
Of course, you can substitute any scientific discipline for "archaeology" and the point stands. Science should try to be as unbiased as possible. People (especially those in power or with vested interests in science returning certain results) will always try to subvert the honest goals of most scientists, and it's up to each and every one of us to fight those influences as best we can.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's a terrible idea. Real "Loser pays"-type systems usually have the judge deciding who pays how much, based on things like, was this a reasonable action (even if you didn't win), did you introduce frivolous motions just to waste time and money, etc.
Pure loser-pays systems are no better than the status quo, because then small individuals daren't ever risk suing large organizations, because if they lose, they may end up owing millions in legal fees (since the big company can spend that much without breaking a sweat). You might say, "Well if they lose, then it was obviously a frivolous lawsuit," but that's plainly not true either.
I find it unlikely, but is this the same David Alan Grier -- the comedian -- who was on "In Living Color" and such? I haven't been able to find anything definitive yet, but I'm assuming it's just a coincidence.
That's got to be a pretty rare name, though...
The issue at hand isn't that we have to dumb down everything, but rather that the law has no sense of humor. It can't, if it's going to be fair and just.
This doesn't mean that a court can't look at something someone said and decide that it's not a true representation of their intent, but if it was as simple as saying, "Oh, that was just a joke," and the court having to take your word for it because, well, it's all in fun, right? Then people really could get away with heinous shit just by claiming that their stated intent was just a joke.
Heck, I've only had jury duty once (well, twice, but the first time I was a full-time student so they excused me). It was fun and enlightening; I even got to be jury foreman because everyone else started staring at the walls when it came time to pick one.
That was five years ago; I'm astonished they haven't called me up since, but I'm looking forward to it. It's gotten even better in L.A. county, since then; when I served, you had to sit in the pool room for 5 days or until you got called to serve on a panel. These days, you only have to go for something like 1 day, maybe 2, or until you get called to serve on a panel. Bring a good book with you and enjoy a day in different environs.
Now, the "blight" restriction is gone, but the seizing still has to be in the public interest. Yeah, it means rich people can have their property seized too, not just poor people. Of course, rich people have the money to fight this, so... in reality, not much has really changed.
At first I panicked and thought Kelo was much worse than it really is, but then I looked into it, and read up a bit on eminent domain.
Where does the Constitution say anything about contributory copyright infringement? Nowhere. As a result, SCOTUS must resort to interpretation of both the Constitution and extant law in order to figure out whether something qualifies as constitutional or not. There's a long road and two hundred forty years of law and history between "the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" and "Corporations can be held liable if they promote copyright infringement via downloading."
Perhaps you could grace us with an answer to the Grokster question without relying on any document except the Constitution itself?
More serious suggestions: Level up new characters of different classes. (I myself have the long, LONG-term goal of having a level 60 character of every class. 60 warlock, 40 priest, 30 warrior, 21 paladin, 10 rogue...) Play the other faction. Do trade skills you haven't done yet. Explore the nooks and crannies of every zone. Run roleplaying events. There's a lot you can do besides grind a character to 60 and then sit in Ironforge all day hoping you can get in an UBRS raid :P
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to foster a general atmosphere of rationalism and humanism. When healthy people in their 20s try to insist that Jesus loves me, despite his having been dead for two thousand years, I get a mite pissed off, and feel quite justified in telling them I think they're wrong. And I certainly have no problem with trying to convince society at large to promote rationalist, humanist ideas, instead of religious dogma.
(Just a nitpick, but you meant "phenomena." The singular is "phenomenon.")
The fact that we don't know everything does not justify making up explanations to fill in the gaps. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. I understand that people will often make up explanations in order to make themselves feel better, but trying to memorialize and institutionalize those explanations -- especially when better, rational explanations are already available -- is madness.
Then I assume you have evidence (up to a reputable scientific standard) that provides answers for those unexplained phenomena? Because lacking evidence for the existence of something, how is it reasonable to claim that it exists?
Your statement can be rephrased thusly: "Since we don't know what it is, why shouldn't I assume there's some supernatural force at work?"
Argumentam ad numeram: The fallacy of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.
I lack a complete understanding of these things, and I know that science in general does also -- but I am not going to fall back upon fairy tales in the meantime. The primary reason that people must embrace fairy tales is because they are taught from birth to fear the unknown and cling to whatever dogma their parents and society happen to teach them.
You can look at people of the 15th century, who believed that disease was caused by demons infesting your body, and then look at how pathology has given rational explanations for disease. But you can't look at phenomena still unexplained in the early 21st-century and think it's reasonable to assume there's a scientific explanation for those phenomena?
1. Are you sure it was induced by that third party? Maybe you were predisposed to have such an event occur, and your apparent belief in such things combined with the undoubted emotional fervor reached in such settings can set one off. It seems a more reasonable explanation than invoking magic. I would also ask, does everyone in those circumstances experience these seizures? Why is it that in controlled circumstances, with randomly selected test subjects, people such as this minister cannot cause this effect to occur any more or less frequently than anyone else can?
2. It is rather expected that people with religious/spiritual leanings are most likely to experience these things. The best biological hypothesis is that there's a region in human brains that does specifically this -- when people have a "religious experience," it's that region being highly active. Some people do not have this region strongly developed, and some do. Again, is magic really a better explanation for this? For thousands of years, certain cultures have known that if you dance and sing yourself into a frenzy, sometimes combined with taking
The original quote is:
"IRC: Where men are men, women are men, and little girls are FBI agents."
The W3C rejected my idea for a "sarcasm" HTML tag, when it would have been so useful at a time like this. Well, I can still fake it:
Our brains don't work like computers? <sarcasm>Noooo, you're kidding!</sarcasm>
But we haven't been beaten at it. We built a tool to play it better -- it's not fundamentally different from inventing baseball, and then inventing a machine that can hurl baseballs at 500 miles per hour.
If we came across a species of dolphin that could beat us at chess, then yes, I'd say surprise was a valid reaction. But we built a machine for a specific task, and you're surprised that it's good at that task?
Yeah, but we invented chess. Running was around for hundreds of millions of years before humans showed up. Is it any surprise that we're (so far) the best species at a game we invented? :)
No, it is clearly the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The argument here is whether seizing your private property and giving it to another private entity qualifies as "public use" because that person will pay more taxes than you. I certainly don't think it does; four Supreme Court justices agree. Unfortunately, it should have been at least five.
This is a terrible decision. Alas, there's no higher court; the only hope (short of eventual bloody revolution) is that another similar case comes along and SCOTUS reverses itself. Which is so unlikely as to be laughable. Bloody revolution, here we come!
Wait, was that a typo?
Geesh, what's with Yoda's grammatical patterns anyway? Break me a fucking give.
Humanity needs to start weaning itself off religion wherever possible. I'm not saying that your friend should give up religion (indeed, trying to get most adults to change their religious beliefs is futile at best), but frankly, aren't we as a society a little old for fairy tales?
Religion is only necessary for adults because they have been taught since childhood to depend upon it. There exist people whose belief in God, if removed, would turn them into (at best) degenerate sociopaths. At the same time, there are plenty of people who lose religion and remain perfectly healthy members of society.
We as a society should begin to wean ourselves from religious belief.
Of course, you can substitute any scientific discipline for "archaeology" and the point stands. Science should try to be as unbiased as possible. People (especially those in power or with vested interests in science returning certain results) will always try to subvert the honest goals of most scientists, and it's up to each and every one of us to fight those influences as best we can.