Yes, of course it was a joke. However, I am having a lot more fun than I thought reading the posts of people who thought I was serious.
My parent post has already been modded down, so I take it some mod was none too amused, wasn't bright enough to identify it as sarcasm, or else just thought that pithy commentary on the Iraq/Iran situation is misplaced here. It is indeed offtopic--especially considering how little technological overlap there is between fusion development and nuclear weapons development--but I'm having some pretty consistent fun nevertheless.;)
I've read this and this and I'm still a little lost. Could someone with a science background please opine as to what significant hurdles scientists have faced in trying to implement fusion technology in the past?
Sorry, forgot to address your last question. Let me add that the U.S. government later formally apologized to the families of the detainees, and even gave them some form of financial restitution. After WWII, it would have been unthinkable for bona-fide Americans to be herded up into camps based on their race, country of origin, or religious beliefs. But now, post-9/11, it is happeningagain.
I wonder if there was a similar erosion of rights and freedoms during the second world war? And if so, was that erosion reversed during the period after WWII?
No, the gatling gun was invented toward the end of the U.S. Civil War, not before it even started. While it did see some minor action in the Civil War, it was still considered an experimental weapon at the time and didn't see widespread usage by the U.S. Army until well after the war ended.
I appreciate that you want to contribute to the historical discussion, but you might want to check on the Wikipedia article I linked to, which says that the gun was invented in 1861 (the same year the Civil War started). The weapon was first used in 1862, less than halfway into the war.
As far as I know, there is also significant debate as to whether a Gatling-style weapon could even be classified as a machine gun. The major difference between the two is that a machine gun has just a single barrel that would overheat and break if fired at similar rates as Gatling weaponry. The Gatling weapons, of course, have multiple barrels that allow for better cooling and a greatly increased rate of fire. I believe the Vulcan-class 20 mm Gatlings are still being used on F-16's and on attack helicopters.
One thing I neglected to point out while I was so high on my horse is that, as we all know, the U.S. has actually used nuclear weapons in a time of war, and has the dubious distinction of being the only nation ever to do so. And that happened despite compelling evidence that it was not even necessary:
When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." Ref.: Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
The most clever way of doing it is to send it electronically in encoded form--and then leave it to the codebreakers who read the Journal to decode it;)
Salient points, sure. But you've got to acknowledge the psychological effect that a horde of nuclear weapons has as a deterrent against military attacks against the U.S., and as leverage in negotiating conventions with other nations. Who would want to give that up? Nuclear non-proliferation treaties only favor you if you have nothing to lose anyway. So no, the U.S. will not be jumping on the peacenik bandwagon any time soon.
Consider the case of Richard Gatling, the inventor of the famous Gatling gun. You may have seen the gun in old Western movies. Once the design was tweaked, the Gatling gun became the most devastating weapon on the planet in the latter part of the 19th century. Its inventor believed it to be a peacetime weapon, too, just as nuclear weapons are today. He reasoned that the weapon was so powerful, and the loss of life resulting from its use so great, that anyone would submit rather than see it used them. Of course, the irony was that the gun was indeed put into action shortly after its inception--by Americans against other Americans in the Civil War.
And there you have it in a nutshell. We essentially used a weapon of mass destructions against our own people--the only thing that has changed is the technology--and you have this unrealistic expectation that we will now get rid of weapons intended for use against people in other nations? It's not happening. At least not in our lifetimes.
There's no need to get snippy and defensive, Steve. While the jury is still out, so to speak, on the issue of to what extent information dispensed in a public electronic forum can be construed as legal advice, I tend to err on the side of caution. That's especially the case when I see bad information about the law being dispensed.
There are two ways to understand the statement "there's no such thing as a frivolous counterclaim." The first is to think of it as a statement akin to saying "When somebody sues you, you go to the mattresses and you fight--fighting back cannot be considered frivolous."
The other way is to understand it as a complete misstatement of the law. (i.e. that counterclaims are not subjected to the same test for frivolity). While I would love to give you credit for the almost poetic first interpretation of the statement, I don't think that's how most people would read it. I certainly did not.
As a lawyer, my livelihood is based on bickering over how language should be interpreted. I really do get some kind of perverse enjoyment out of it, but I understand that it's not something most non-lawyers enjoy. I apologize if you thought my correcting you on an important legal point was an entree to my wanting to engage in some kind of online pissing contest to see who is "rightest". It wasn't my intention to give you that impression. I have had bad luck in the past communicating on slashdot with laymen. The conversations quickly degenerate into games of "argue with the lawyer about the law." One guy even stooped so low as to cut and paste two separate comments I had made on two separate issues, and read them together to form some kind of bizarre, illogical "gotcha." It just makes for ugly banter and in my opinion diminishes us all.
Oh and to answer your question about about how often Rule 11 sanctions are applied, I don't have hard statistics, but I will tell you that the best answer to that is "not very often at all." The reason can be traced back to my original post in another thread, and it's that most lawyers do not simply go out and risk their reputations, careers, and clients' dignity by filing frivolous claims. I am well aware that we are perceived as soulless ambulance chasers, but the reality is different. There is a standard that must be met before we can sign off on petitions, motions, etc, and it's found in the form of pleading requirements and several other things. It's a pretty low bar, I admit, but it exists nonetheless. Cheers.
Oddly enough, I was just talking about you. I did come off as kind of an ass--I'm sorry about that. Don't let old lawyer bastards like me make you feel dumb. I love that you are eager and willing to learn about this subject, and don't let old lawyer bastards like me convince you that that's a bad thing. Take care.
Very well put. I didn't mean to tear that poor kid down earlier. I'm reading several of my comments now and going "Wow, I'm kind of an asshole!" It was late at night and I had just finished a Scotch on the rocks...why I chose that time to answer questions on Slashdot is beyond me.
Anyways, thank you for explaining to him how far-from-strange it is for judges to interpret their own procedural rules. I answered it like "Seriously? But that's part of their job..." but you were kind enough to take the time to lay it out for him. Well done.
Good for you, AC. I laughed out loud at this. Just don't even bother--I figured out too late that this guy literally cannot read and understand what you write, which makes arguing with him kind of pointless. You've really got to dumb it down in order for him to understand you. He's so bad at it, he even resorted to cutting and pasting two separate comments I had made in two separate posts about two separate things, and read them together as one concept. Presumably, mashing together dissimilar concepts under the common heading of "things that I have typed at one time or another" counts as intelligent discourse in whatever fucked-up world he thinks he's king of. Differing opinions notwithstanding, I realized I had just wasted time arguing with a very, very stupid person, which I'm sure diminishes me as well. Out of morbid curiosity, I checked some of his other posts. It's just the usual arrogant, sanctimonious garbage. No surprises there. Rock on.
whether evidence is admissable or not in a court of law
Change this to "whether certain types of evidence is admissable or not in a court of law, notably evidence that could be possibly be excluded under heresay rules. There are separate admissability rules and heresay rules and exceptions are a kind of subset of them." I wish this had an editing function. I still don't have an evidence rulebook in front of me and I'm doing this from memory. Just didn't want to give you the wrong information. Have a good one.
not really, a judge's duties are to interpret existing laws and weigh evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of a party.
Now I'm just going to tell you this and then retreat from this argument, because I can tell you're not familiar with this subject. I don't think you've ever heard of heresay rules, for example, where judges determine whether evidence is admissable or not in a court of law (this is not "weighing the evidence, by the way--that is something different). Like most of what a judge does, it is a purely administrative function that has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of a party, but instead provides a kind of constructive legal environment in which that determination can be made. In fairness, I didn't know that either until I went to law school. Cheers.
P.S. These are rules of civil procedure (i.e. they work great for civil cases, you know...lawsuits). Murder cases use a supplemental set of rules that prevent exactly the situation you described.
There's no such thing as a frivilous counterclaim once you've been sued. It's defensive.
Please mod parent down. This is absolutely, 100% just not true. Anything signed by an attorney in a court of law (motions, pleadings, etc.) must be based on existing law and have evidentiary support. That certainly includes counterclaims. Please read FRCP Rule 11(b) before you begin to dispense legal advice.
That explanation basically places subjective authority entirely in a judges hands.
Well no kidding, that's exactly the kind of determination that a judge should be trusted to make. News flash! Judges can also determine the outcome of court cases as well! It's kind of their job!
(Incidentally, you might want to cite all of FRCP Rule 11 instead of just the parts that appear to be most "subjective" to you.) Plus, I'm not sure I even understand your point. Determining whether or not a suit is frivolous is just one of a judge's duties. Judges examine the claims and evidence and make those kinds of determinations. And so? What would you suggest as an alternative? A differently-worded Rule 11...that judges would also be tasked with interpreting when they preside over cases? I'm not sure you understand how the U.S. legal system works.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just the famous bridge to nowhere.
Yes, of course it was a joke. However, I am having a lot more fun than I thought reading the posts of people who thought I was serious.
;)
My parent post has already been modded down, so I take it some mod was none too amused, wasn't bright enough to identify it as sarcasm, or else just thought that pithy commentary on the Iraq/Iran situation is misplaced here. It is indeed offtopic--especially considering how little technological overlap there is between fusion development and nuclear weapons development--but I'm having some pretty consistent fun nevertheless.
I've read this and this and I'm still a little lost. Could someone with a science background please opine as to what significant hurdles scientists have faced in trying to implement fusion technology in the past?
The Chinese hate our freedom. If we launch a full-scale invasion now, we can bring democracy to China before the 2008 Olympics in Beijing!
Sorry, forgot to address your last question. Let me add that the U.S. government later formally apologized to the families of the detainees, and even gave them some form of financial restitution. After WWII, it would have been unthinkable for bona-fide Americans to be herded up into camps based on their race, country of origin, or religious beliefs. But now, post-9/11, it is happening again.
Well, if you were a Japanese-American living on the West Coast during WWII, then you might have been herded into American internment camps and detained there until the war was over. How's that for an erosion of rights and freedoms?
I think you just made Spock's head explode!
I appreciate that you want to contribute to the historical discussion, but you might want to check on the Wikipedia article I linked to, which says that the gun was invented in 1861 (the same year the Civil War started). The weapon was first used in 1862, less than halfway into the war.
As far as I know, there is also significant debate as to whether a Gatling-style weapon could even be classified as a machine gun. The major difference between the two is that a machine gun has just a single barrel that would overheat and break if fired at similar rates as Gatling weaponry. The Gatling weapons, of course, have multiple barrels that allow for better cooling and a greatly increased rate of fire. I believe the Vulcan-class 20 mm Gatlings are still being used on F-16's and on attack helicopters.
One thing I neglected to point out while I was so high on my horse is that, as we all know, the U.S. has actually used nuclear weapons in a time of war, and has the dubious distinction of being the only nation ever to do so. And that happened despite compelling evidence that it was not even necessary:
taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima
At least this kind of stuff is still going on--it does offer hope.
Mine too. Oh well, I'll just have to assume that some humorless, pro-torture nut modded me down.
The most clever way of doing it is to send it electronically in encoded form--and then leave it to the codebreakers who read the Journal to decode it ;)
* Build a waterboarding setup using common household items!
* Exclusive interview with ECHELON! The Journal: Boxers or Briefs? ECHELON: Beep...beep...
* The top ten things not even the President knows!
* Keith Alexander's Beauty Tips!
* More inside!
Sorry, couldn't resist >.
Salient points, sure. But you've got to acknowledge the psychological effect that a horde of nuclear weapons has as a deterrent against military attacks against the U.S., and as leverage in negotiating conventions with other nations. Who would want to give that up? Nuclear non-proliferation treaties only favor you if you have nothing to lose anyway. So no, the U.S. will not be jumping on the peacenik bandwagon any time soon.
Consider the case of Richard Gatling, the inventor of the famous Gatling gun. You may have seen the gun in old Western movies. Once the design was tweaked, the Gatling gun became the most devastating weapon on the planet in the latter part of the 19th century. Its inventor believed it to be a peacetime weapon, too, just as nuclear weapons are today. He reasoned that the weapon was so powerful, and the loss of life resulting from its use so great, that anyone would submit rather than see it used them. Of course, the irony was that the gun was indeed put into action shortly after its inception--by Americans against other Americans in the Civil War.
And there you have it in a nutshell. We essentially used a weapon of mass destructions against our own people--the only thing that has changed is the technology--and you have this unrealistic expectation that we will now get rid of weapons intended for use against people in other nations? It's not happening. At least not in our lifetimes.
Yes! It would be so easy to find this guy, too. That would be one small step for Mann.
*chuckles* :)
There's no need to get snippy and defensive, Steve. While the jury is still out, so to speak, on the issue of to what extent information dispensed in a public electronic forum can be construed as legal advice, I tend to err on the side of caution. That's especially the case when I see bad information about the law being dispensed.
There are two ways to understand the statement "there's no such thing as a frivolous counterclaim." The first is to think of it as a statement akin to saying "When somebody sues you, you go to the mattresses and you fight--fighting back cannot be considered frivolous."
The other way is to understand it as a complete misstatement of the law. (i.e. that counterclaims are not subjected to the same test for frivolity). While I would love to give you credit for the almost poetic first interpretation of the statement, I don't think that's how most people would read it. I certainly did not.
As a lawyer, my livelihood is based on bickering over how language should be interpreted. I really do get some kind of perverse enjoyment out of it, but I understand that it's not something most non-lawyers enjoy. I apologize if you thought my correcting you on an important legal point was an entree to my wanting to engage in some kind of online pissing contest to see who is "rightest". It wasn't my intention to give you that impression. I have had bad luck in the past communicating on slashdot with laymen. The conversations quickly degenerate into games of "argue with the lawyer about the law." One guy even stooped so low as to cut and paste two separate comments I had made on two separate issues, and read them together to form some kind of bizarre, illogical "gotcha." It just makes for ugly banter and in my opinion diminishes us all.
Oh and to answer your question about about how often Rule 11 sanctions are applied, I don't have hard statistics, but I will tell you that the best answer to that is "not very often at all." The reason can be traced back to my original post in another thread, and it's that most lawyers do not simply go out and risk their reputations, careers, and clients' dignity by filing frivolous claims. I am well aware that we are perceived as soulless ambulance chasers, but the reality is different. There is a standard that must be met before we can sign off on petitions, motions, etc, and it's found in the form of pleading requirements and several other things. It's a pretty low bar, I admit, but it exists nonetheless. Cheers.
Oddly enough, I was just talking about you. I did come off as kind of an ass--I'm sorry about that. Don't let old lawyer bastards like me make you feel dumb. I love that you are eager and willing to learn about this subject, and don't let old lawyer bastards like me convince you that that's a bad thing. Take care.
Very well put. I didn't mean to tear that poor kid down earlier. I'm reading several of my comments now and going "Wow, I'm kind of an asshole!" It was late at night and I had just finished a Scotch on the rocks...why I chose that time to answer questions on Slashdot is beyond me.
Anyways, thank you for explaining to him how far-from-strange it is for judges to interpret their own procedural rules. I answered it like "Seriously? But that's part of their job..." but you were kind enough to take the time to lay it out for him. Well done.
Never mind, I saw from your other post that you're just a troll.
Good for you, AC. I laughed out loud at this. Just don't even bother--I figured out too late that this guy literally cannot read and understand what you write, which makes arguing with him kind of pointless. You've really got to dumb it down in order for him to understand you. He's so bad at it, he even resorted to cutting and pasting two separate comments I had made in two separate posts about two separate things, and read them together as one concept. Presumably, mashing together dissimilar concepts under the common heading of "things that I have typed at one time or another" counts as intelligent discourse in whatever fucked-up world he thinks he's king of. Differing opinions notwithstanding, I realized I had just wasted time arguing with a very, very stupid person, which I'm sure diminishes me as well. Out of morbid curiosity, I checked some of his other posts. It's just the usual arrogant, sanctimonious garbage. No surprises there. Rock on.
Change this to "whether certain types of evidence is admissable or not in a court of law, notably evidence that could be possibly be excluded under heresay rules. There are separate admissability rules and heresay rules and exceptions are a kind of subset of them." I wish this had an editing function. I still don't have an evidence rulebook in front of me and I'm doing this from memory. Just didn't want to give you the wrong information. Have a good one.
And actually, please don't dispense any more legal advice even after you read it ;)
Now I'm just going to tell you this and then retreat from this argument, because I can tell you're not familiar with this subject. I don't think you've ever heard of heresay rules, for example, where judges determine whether evidence is admissable or not in a court of law (this is not "weighing the evidence, by the way--that is something different). Like most of what a judge does, it is a purely administrative function that has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of a party, but instead provides a kind of constructive legal environment in which that determination can be made. In fairness, I didn't know that either until I went to law school. Cheers.
P.S. These are rules of civil procedure (i.e. they work great for civil cases, you know...lawsuits). Murder cases use a supplemental set of rules that prevent exactly the situation you described.
Please mod parent down. This is absolutely, 100% just not true. Anything signed by an attorney in a court of law (motions, pleadings, etc.) must be based on existing law and have evidentiary support. That certainly includes counterclaims. Please read FRCP Rule 11(b) before you begin to dispense legal advice.
Well no kidding, that's exactly the kind of determination that a judge should be trusted to make. News flash! Judges can also determine the outcome of court cases as well! It's kind of their job!
(Incidentally, you might want to cite all of FRCP Rule 11 instead of just the parts that appear to be most "subjective" to you.) Plus, I'm not sure I even understand your point. Determining whether or not a suit is frivolous is just one of a judge's duties. Judges examine the claims and evidence and make those kinds of determinations. And so? What would you suggest as an alternative? A differently-worded Rule 11...that judges would also be tasked with interpreting when they preside over cases? I'm not sure you understand how the U.S. legal system works.