Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #447239 > unrolled thread

OT: Federal Judges

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  OT: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 16:51 -0700
    Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 15:56 -0800
      Re: OT: Federal Judges bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 13:17 -0800
    Re: OT: Federal Judges amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-02-10 19:08 -0600
    Re: Federal Judges "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-10 21:20 -0500
      Re: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 19:34 -0700
        Re: Federal Judges "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-10 21:43 -0500
          Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 19:06 -0800
          Re: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 20:09 -0700
            Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 20:08 -0800
            Re: Federal Judges jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 04:48 -0800
              Re: Federal Judges Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-11 16:05 +0000
                Re: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-11 09:21 -0700
                  Re: Federal Judges "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-11 20:53 -0500
                    Re: Federal Judges Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-12 12:59 +1100
                      Re: Federal Judges krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-11 22:09 -0500
                Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 17:51 -0800
                  Re: Federal Judges Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:55 +0000
                    Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 18:57 -0800
              Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 17:39 -0800
                Re: Federal Judges Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-11 17:53 -0800
                  Re: Federal Judges krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-11 22:10 -0500
                    Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 20:37 -0800
                      Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-12 06:13 -0800
                        Re: Federal Judges "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-12 15:10 -0500
                          Re: Federal Judges krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-12 17:06 -0500
                        Re: Federal Judges krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-12 17:06 -0500
                        Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 19:04 -0800
                  Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 20:30 -0800
                  Re: Federal Judges Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:58 +0000
                    Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 19:12 -0800
                  Re: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-18 17:03 -0800
                    Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 17:15 -0800
                      Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-18 17:27 -0800
                        Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 19:38 -0800
                          Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-19 05:47 -0800
                            Re: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-19 08:20 -0800
                            Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 08:29 -0800
                              Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-19 11:41 -0800
                                Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 18:20 -0800
                                  Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-19 19:00 -0800
                                    Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-20 03:38 -0800
                                      Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-20 07:04 -0800
                                        Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-20 19:41 -0800
                                          Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-21 05:26 -0800
                                            Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-21 06:50 -0800
                                              Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-21 12:46 -0800
                                                Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-21 20:23 -0800
                      Re: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-19 07:13 -0800
                        Re: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-19 08:21 -0700
                          Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 09:04 -0800
                        Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 08:52 -0800
                Re: Federal Judges Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-19 05:53 +0000
                  Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 01:01 -0800
        Re: Federal Judges "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-02-18 16:15 -0500
          Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 17:25 -0800
    Re: OT: Federal Judges Wanderer <wanderer@dialup4less.com> - 2017-02-11 06:21 -0800
      Re: OT: Federal Judges John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-11 09:32 -0800
    Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-11 06:29 -0800
      Re: OT: Federal Judges Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-11 16:09 +0000
        Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 20:41 -0800
      Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 18:07 -0800
        Re: OT: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-12 12:07 -0800
      Re: OT: Federal Judges "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-02-18 16:21 -0500
      Re: OT: Federal Judges Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-18 23:45 +0000
        Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-18 17:01 -0800
          Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 17:41 -0800
            Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-19 07:38 -0800
              Re: OT: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-19 09:49 -0700
                Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-19 09:27 -0800
                  Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 10:38 -0800
                  Re: OT: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-19 16:41 -0700
              Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 10:24 -0800
          Re: OT: Federal Judges whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 18:33 -0800
            Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-19 08:19 -0800
              Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 18:31 -0800
              Re: OT: Federal Judges whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 20:22 -0800
                Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-22 10:33 -0800
    Re: OT: Federal Judges Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 07:41 -0800
      Re: OT: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-21 10:24 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#447239 — OT: Federal Judges

"Article III federal judges" (as opposed to judges of some courts with
special jurisdictions) serve "during good behavior" (often paraphrased
as appointed "for life"). 

Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from
office. 

Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from
office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed
by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William
Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, have argued that
the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a
writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to
impeachment

I would argue that "bad behavior" could also be defined by issuing
decisions which are overturned more than 66% of the time.

We need such a law/definition to toss out the trash on the 9th
Circuit.
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#447241

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 10:51:55 AM UTC+11, Jim Thompson wrote:
> "Article III federal judges" (as opposed to judges of some courts with
> special jurisdictions) serve "during good behavior" (often paraphrased
> as appointed "for life"). 
> 
> Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from
> office. 
> 
> Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from
> office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed
> by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William
> Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, have argued that
> the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a
> writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to
> impeachment
> 
> I would argue that "bad behavior" could also be defined by issuing
> decisions which are overturned more than 66% of the time.
> 
> We need such a law/definition to toss out the trash on the 9th
> Circuit.

It's the trash in the White House that's the actual problem.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447315

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:56:36 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 10:51:55 AM UTC+11, Jim Thompson wrote:
> > "Article III federal judges" (as opposed to judges of some courts with
> > special jurisdictions) serve "during good behavior" (often paraphrased
> > as appointed "for life"). 
> > 
> > Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from
> > office. 
> > 
> > Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from
> > office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed
> > by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William
> > Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, have argued that
> > the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a
> > writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to
> > impeachment
> > 
> > I would argue that "bad behavior" could also be defined by issuing
> > decisions which are overturned more than 66% of the time.
> > 
> > We need such a law/definition to toss out the trash on the 9th
> > Circuit.
> 
> It's the trash in the White House that's the actual problem.
> 
> -- 
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

I believe it was Dershowitz who made a case for Rhenquist committing perjury during his confirmation hearings...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447254

On 2/10/2017 5:51 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> "Article III federal judges" (as opposed to judges of some courts with
> special jurisdictions) serve "during good behavior" (often paraphrased
> as appointed "for life").
>
> Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from
> office.
>
> Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from
> office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed
> by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William
> Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, have argued that
> the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a
> writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to
> impeachment
>
> I would argue that "bad behavior" could also be defined by issuing
> decisions which are overturned more than 66% of the time.
>
> We need such a law/definition to toss out the trash on the 9th
> Circuit.
> 		
>                                         ...Jim Thompson
>

   Mark Levin has some ideas about this.
> http://www.conventionofstates.com/mark_levin_wows_state_legislators_take_your_power_back
  Don't see that it is getting much traction yet.
                                                  Mikek

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447259 — Re: Federal Judges

Jim Thompson wrote:
> "Article III federal judges" (as opposed to judges of some courts with
> special jurisdictions) serve "during good behavior" (often paraphrased
> as appointed "for life").
>
> Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from
> office.
>
> Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from
> office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed
> by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William
> Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, have argued that
> the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a
> writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to
> impeachment
>
> I would argue that "bad behavior" could also be defined by issuing
> decisions which are overturned more than 66% of the time.

Bad behavior should include citing a statute and ignoring parts of the 
language in that statute.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447260 — Re: Federal Judges

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 21:20:48 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
<fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> "Article III federal judges" (as opposed to judges of some courts with
>> special jurisdictions) serve "during good behavior" (often paraphrased
>> as appointed "for life").
>>
>> Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from
>> office.
>>
>> Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from
>> office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed
>> by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William
>> Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, have argued that
>> the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a
>> writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to
>> impeachment
>>
>> I would argue that "bad behavior" could also be defined by issuing
>> decisions which are overturned more than 66% of the time.
>
>Bad behavior should include citing a statute and ignoring parts of the 
>language in that statute.
>

I was seeking a quantifiable way... 66%+ overturns should clean the
liberal clock post haste.
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447261 — Re: Federal Judges

Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> I was seeking a quantifiable way... 66%+ overturns should clean the
> liberal clock post haste.

Do they get that many overturns?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447265 — Re: Federal Judges

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:41:44 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >
> > I was seeking a quantifiable way... 66%+ overturns should clean the
> > liberal clock post haste.
> 
> Do they get that many overturns?

How would Jim know? His database is the same as krw's - what he remembers from the little he reads.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447266 — Re: Federal Judges

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 21:43:56 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
<fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>> I was seeking a quantifiable way... 66%+ overturns should clean the
>> liberal clock post haste.
>
>Do they get that many overturns?
>
>

9th Circuit => 83% Overturns !!

Spit and BBQ >:-}
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447275 — Re: Federal Judges

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 2:09:30 PM UTC+11, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 21:43:56 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
> <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
> 
> >Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>
> >> I was seeking a quantifiable way... 66%+ overturns should clean the
> >> liberal clock post haste.
> >
> >Do they get that many overturns?
> 
> 9th Circuit => 83% Overturns !!
> 
> Spit and BBQ >:-}

I wonder where Jim got that information, and Jim probably doesn't know either.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/

does suggest that Sean Hannity at Fox News might have been the source.

Jim neglects to take into account that overturn rate only apples to the decisions which are appealed - which is to say the decisions that appellants think might be worth appealing.

The right statistic would be the proportion of the total decisions which are over-turned.

"From 1999 to 2008, of the 0.151% of Ninth Circuit Court rulings that were reviewed by the Supreme Court, 20% were affirmed, 19% were vacated, and 61% were reversed; the median reversal rate for all federal appellate courts was 68.29% for the same period."

In other words, one decision in some 662 gets reviewed by the Supreme Court, so perhaps one in a thousand gets reversed.

Jim's grasp of logic makes him a prime candidate for the spit and barbeque.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447283 — Re: Federal Judges

Jim, you got elected here because I do not respond directly to Slowman. Again, he is trying to exercise armchair social engineering from a country that wants to push us to take in every Mohammed, Jesus and Achmed, while they put such people on an island. Truly one of the best examples of an Ultrasickening liberal Ihave seen in a long time. He probably watches US TV and thinks we all go around all day with real estate agents and contractors doing the "Love It Or List IT" thing, because he has no idea of the poverty that some of our people live in. I have is fairly decent right now in suburbia but I do remember any years ago having to make a decision whether to pay the house payment or buy food. I paid the payment and found this old nasty chicken in the freezer and cooked it, I put so much spices on it it could have literally been shoe leather, but we ate. this was a Thursday, day before payday and if that check was not in the mail we would never have been a "NEVER LATE" when it comes to credit. But /Australia probably has some sort of "safety net" for people who are delusional, to the point where they cannot have guns. 

think about it, they claim that they do not have mass shootings because people do not have guns, not realizing that they are by the same token, claiming that if people had guns they would have mass shootings and the only thing keeping their obviously deranged population from having mass shootings is that Mommy took their guns away. 

So we should take their advice. Well I do agree with one thing, put all immigrants on an island. 

Anyway, about the judges, being overturned is a big kick in the face to them. I know, and I know how to use that in court. It is like you spending a week designing something and you are all fired sure it is going to work and is practically ready for production but it goes up in smoke. that is what getting overturned is like for a judge, any judge. The only ones it doesn't work on is like Mayor's courts, but you just bribe them. 

Now in the more contemporary sense, we have alot of EOs now from Trump and many are going to challenge those in court. They would have under Obama but those who were against his shit were not social justice warriors. 

At the moment he has stopped immigration from a few countries and a federal court has injuncted (if I may invent a word) against that. But many legal scholars have expressed that they think the higher courts, perhaps the supreme court, will overturn it. there is nothing in the Constitution about having to take in immigrants or refugees. I believe though that this power is delegated yo congress, but that is from old memory. that limits can be imposed by congress. 

And these stupid fucks cam on with a first amendment claim, that is was racist. Well then Trump, come on and just stop ALL immigration, PERIOD. How can that be racist ? 

But there is nnothing wrong with racism or any other prejudice. you see someone in a turban washing his feet at three in the afternoon and then bowing his head to the ground and repeating words by rote to some godhead he believes will give him 72 (supposedly female) virgins if he kills a bunch of us infidels, I consider that a mental fucking defective and I do not believe in the insantiy defense. 

I am serious, these fucking serial killers, suffering from some disease of the mind ? We have a cure that only takes a few microseconds. Point blank with a .45. You sick, I will heal you right now. No ore of this. 

Tjose fucking liberals, know what ? I hope they get cancer, but I hope it is operable and they are saved, because then they have to care for and nurture the tumor. It only wanted to live. the fact that it cared about its own life and not yours is irrelevant, they need to feed it and pay for its (possibly bizarre) medical care for the rest of its natural life. Like a child, and of course their body produced it. 

A tumor is a tumor, just like the "brothers" in Chicago who will shoot you for your tennis shoes, or a ten buck bag of crack. they are sick and need to be debraided. I think I spelled that right, that, I think, is when they remove dead flesh from in your joints which is causing pain and problems in mobility. 

But the liberals apparently want you to have compassion for that which hurts you. God damn I hope they learn the hard way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447294 — Re: Federal Judges

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:48:18 -0800, jurb6006 wrote:

> I paid the payment and found this old nasty chicken in the freezer
> and cooked it, I put so much spices on it it could have literally been
> shoe leather, but we ate. this was a Thursday, day before payday and if
> that check was not in the mail we would never have been a "NEVER LATE"
> when it comes to credit.

This is one of the things that scares me about the ongoing dash to 
abolish cash. All the time we have cash, we can buy whatever we want when 
we want. But in this glorious "cashless society" the elites are pushing, 
that will no longer be possible, because every single transaction we need 
to make has to be OK'd by an anonymous third party who might just decide 
to be nasty one day and reject the payments we're trying to make. In your 
scenario above, the financial institutions will literally have the power 
of life and death over us - yet they have proved time and time again that 
they are in no way worthy of that level of trust. Not remotely.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447296 — Re: Federal Judges

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:05:56 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:48:18 -0800, jurb6006 wrote:
>
>> I paid the payment and found this old nasty chicken in the freezer
>> and cooked it, I put so much spices on it it could have literally been
>> shoe leather, but we ate. this was a Thursday, day before payday and if
>> that check was not in the mail we would never have been a "NEVER LATE"
>> when it comes to credit.
>
>This is one of the things that scares me about the ongoing dash to 
>abolish cash. All the time we have cash, we can buy whatever we want when 
>we want. But in this glorious "cashless society" the elites are pushing, 
>that will no longer be possible, because every single transaction we need 
>to make has to be OK'd by an anonymous third party who might just decide 
>to be nasty one day and reject the payments we're trying to make. In your 
>scenario above, the financial institutions will literally have the power 
>of life and death over us - yet they have proved time and time again that 
>they are in no way worthy of that level of trust. Not remotely.

It can get quite scary....

Recently trying to balance my checkbook against the bank statement I
had an $8 dollar error.

Finally found it two months back, I had read an "8" as a "0".

Rather than adjust every entry I decided I'd just do an $8 deposit to
correct the adding error.

I had to show photo ID to make an $8 CASH deposit.

That's just a wee bit ridiculous... if I were a drug dealer, wouldn't
I be making larger deposits ?>:-}
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447357 — Re: Federal Judges

Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:05:56 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>> This is one of the things that scares me about the ongoing dash to
>> abolish cash.
>
> It can get quite scary....
>
> Recently trying to balance my checkbook against the bank statement I
> had an $8 dollar error.
>
> Finally found it two months back, I had read an "8" as a "0".
>
> Rather than adjust every entry I decided I'd just do an $8 deposit to
> correct the adding error.
>
> I had to show photo ID to make an $8 CASH deposit.
>
> That's just a wee bit ridiculous... if I were a drug dealer, wouldn't
> I be making larger deposits ?>:-}

Just as stock certificates have anti-counterfeiting features, the 
production of cash could be privatized.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447359 — Re: Federal Judges

On 12/02/17 12:53, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Just as stock certificates have anti-counterfeiting features, the
> production of cash could be privatized.

It has been. Australia makes cash currency for multiple other countries,
using its proprietary plastic note technology.

Clifford Heath.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447365 — Re: Federal Judges

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:59:42 +1100, Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:

>On 12/02/17 12:53, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> Just as stock certificates have anti-counterfeiting features, the
>> production of cash could be privatized.
>
>It has been. Australia makes cash currency for multiple other countries,
>using its proprietary plastic note technology.

The backing of cash was private, at one time too.  It didn't make
commerce very simple, though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447355 — Re: Federal Judges

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:07:51 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:48:18 -0800, jurb6006 wrote:
> 
> > I paid the payment and found this old nasty chicken in the freezer
> > and cooked it, I put so much spices on it it could have literally been
> > shoe leather, but we ate. this was a Thursday, day before payday and if
> > that check was not in the mail we would never have been a "NEVER LATE"
> > when it comes to credit.
> 
> This is one of the things that scares me about the ongoing dash to 
> abolish cash. All the time we have cash, we can buy whatever we want when 
> we want. But in this glorious "cashless society" the elites are pushing, 
> that will no longer be possible, because every single transaction we need 
> to make has to be OK'd by an anonymous third party who might just decide 
> to be nasty one day and reject the payments we're trying to make.

Idiot. In Australia, electronic transactions worth less than $100 are OK'ed automatically - there's no reference back to any central authority, just a one-way message saying that the money has been spent. If processing power gets cheap enough, and communications costs low enough, this may change, but there are always going to be transactions where anonymity is going to be a requirement. You can start getting worried when cash is actually banned, but there's no sign of that yet.

> In your scenario above, the financial institutions will literally have the 
> power  of life and death over us - yet they have proved time and time again 
> that  they are in no way worthy of that level of trust. Not remotely.

The fact that electronic money transfer is a lot neater and quicker most of the time isn't going to be a justification for eliminating cash. You are indulging in an Orwellian fantasy, which is a bit strange since Orwell was a convinced socialist, if an equally convinced anti-communist.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447412 — Re: Federal Judges

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 17:51:09 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:

> Idiot. In Australia, electronic transactions worth less than $100 are
> OK'ed automatically - there's no reference back to any central
> authority, just a one-way message saying that the money has been spent.
> If processing power gets cheap enough, and communications costs low
> enough, this may change, but there are always going to be transactions
> where anonymity is going to be a requirement. You can start getting
> worried when cash is actually banned, but there's no sign of that yet.

Oh really? One voice among many calling for cash to abolished:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-10/citi-economist-says-it-
might-be-time-to-abolish-cash

For some reason you seem to be totally relaxed about handing over control 
of our most personal spending decisions to a bunch of crooks whose 
criminality has reached EPIC proportions. How very bizarre...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447518 — Re: Federal Judges

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:57:19 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 17:51:09 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:
> 
> > Idiot. In Australia, electronic transactions worth less than $100 are
> > OK'ed automatically - there's no reference back to any central
> > authority, just a one-way message saying that the money has been spent.
> > If processing power gets cheap enough, and communications costs low
> > enough, this may change, but there are always going to be transactions
> > where anonymity is going to be a requirement. You can start getting
> > worried when cash is actually banned, but there's no sign of that yet.
> 
> Oh really? One voice among many calling for cash to abolished:
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-10/citi-economist-says-it-
> might-be-time-to-abolish-cash
> 
> For some reason you seem to be totally relaxed about handing over control 
> of our most personal spending decisions to a bunch of crooks whose 
> criminality has reached EPIC proportions. How very bizarre...

I retain full control over my personal spending decisions, and I'm sure if you want to keep on paying for sex with anonymous cash you will be able to do it. All those crooks whose criminality has reached epic proportions will feel much the same need. Bribery really needs an anonymous money transfer system.

Holding the size of the anonymous money transfers down to small bribes and the sort of payment that you might have to make to make your sexual attentions tolerable might be a good idea.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447352 — Re: Federal Judges

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 11:48:21 PM UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Jim, you got elected here because I do not respond directly to Slowman. Again, he is trying to exercise armchair social engineering from a country that wants to push us to take in every Mohammed, Jesus and Achmed, while they put such people on an island. 

Wrong. We only want you to take the ones who aren't terrorists - which is the overwhelming majority. Concentrating on Muslim terrorist may mean that you aren't paying enough attention to people like Timothy McVeigh who was a born-again Christian.

The people that Australia puts in off-shore detention are just the ones that try to get to Australia by being smuggled in on fishing boats. It got to be an industry a decade or so ago, and the plan was to wreck the economic model by declaring that if you tried to get in illegally by boat, you were never going to get in, which does seem to have discouraged the people smugglers.

The Australian immigration service doesn't ask whether potential immigrants are Muslim. We seem to be accepting fewer Muslims than we once did, but it doesn't seem to be because of their religion.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/muslim-migration-to-australia-the-big-slowdown/news-story/6be73d718d50476f940e30281d885b99

The Australian is a Murdoch-owned right-wing newspaper, but it's up-market and tries to look balanced.

<snipped the rest of Jurb being tediously ill-informed>

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web