AB4

If this is supposed to be the big answer, then what is the question?

www.leg.state.nv.us...

reply to post by NeoVain

Sorry, you've got to give me more than that. Why is this philosophy and metaphysics? Do you like the bill? What do you think it does? Do you think it's of national interest?

reply to post by charles1952


I suppose the bigger question is, if it is worth the effor(expended resources of a society) to maintain the answer to a question that so few even cares to ask?

reply to post by NeoVain


The question seems to be whether or not it is legal for the state of Nevada to publish legal notices, under certain circumstances which seem hazy, on the internet.

Dude? If you are going to put it in this forum it should look something like this:

Plato: And is it not true, dear Glaucon, that the state of Nevada should seek the legal liberty to publish notices of a legal nature on the World Wide Web?

Glaucon: Verily. But shouldn't that put the involved party's personal information at risk and available to Haxor the Clown?

Plato: It is true, kind Glaucon.

Originally posted by Bybyots
reply to post by NeoVain

 

The question seems to be whether or not it is legal for the state of Nevada to publish legal notices, under certain circumstances which seem hazy, on the internet.

Dude? If you are going to put it in this forum it should look something like this:

Plato: And is it not true, dear Glaucon, that the state of Nevada should seek the legal liberty to publish notices of a legal nature on the World Wide Web?

Glaucon: Verily. But shouldn't that put the involved party's personal information at risk and available to Haxor the Clown?

Plato: It is true, kind Glaucon.

edit on 11-4-2013 by Bybyots because:

Thank you for your input, that made me smile

To be more specific however,



So the question is, if the amount of resources invested by this society in matter such as this, is really worth it? Do you feel represented by this person making these amendments? You pay his salary. He does nothing else.

I've got an objection to it, but if you're only looking at the money it may be a good deal. This seems to be an amendment to an existing law. My guess is it took less than a day to edit it. It will save all of the money spent on ad space to print these notices. Of course, that takes revenue from the little home town papers, but I don't think they looked at that.

Oh, and less printing means the environment will be just a teeny, tiny, greener. (If you happen to think that's a good thing.)

Originally posted by charles1952
I've got an objection to it, but if you're only looking at the money it may be a good deal. This seems to be an amendment to an existing law. My guess is it took less than a day to edit it. It will save all of the money spent on ad space to print these notices. Of course, that takes revenue from the little home town papers, but I don't think they looked at that.

Oh, and less printing means the environment will be just a teeny, tiny, greener. (If you happen to think that's a good thing.)

Erm, while i appreaciate your input, i would appreciate even more if you tried to look at the more philosophical aspects of this. Money is only a small part of the whole picture here, there are other resources involved, and, perhaps more importantly, NOT involved here that we perhaps would be better adivised putting more focus on ?

Example: how many actually agreees to these amends? If so, would it perhaps be possible to say the same thing in somewhat less amounts of words(and thus wasted ink, energy, etc)? Isn´t it time to drop the goobledy-gook speak in these bills an instead type them in PLAIN ENGLISH? The language seem to be from how it was used 200 years ago, over-specific and just tiring on the eyes...?

Questions such as these, may be far more important then the actual contents of this bill, as perceived by the one who wrote it as opposed to the one reading it.

reply to post by NeoVain

So the question is, if the amount of resources invested by this society in matter such as this, is really worth it? Do you feel represented by this person making these amendments?

No, agreed, it's stupid and insensitive to what's coming in terms of the way that computer networks are changing, and how we will have to change to interact with them. No, I think that they should reconsider what will soon be seen a a vulgar use of the interwebs.

reply to post by NeoVain

Dear NeoVain,

My sincere apologies. Perhaps I can answer your questions more appropriately, now that I understand your point of view more clearly.

How many agree? Obviously, if it is passed, then the majority of those we have chosen to make such decisions for us agree. If you would like the State of Nevada, the US, and perhaps the world, to choose another system of governmental decision making that's a case that can be made, but I didn't realize that was your wish.

Say it more simply? Generally, no. Some times it is possible and I heartily approve of that. Our legal system (properly) requires that the foreseeable events in a law are covered, and that only the changes deemed necessary are made. It's a legal problem, sure, but laws by definition are legal, and have to stand up to the attacks of lawyers and courts. Really, this is where "t" crossing and "i" dotting is essential.

Try it sometime with something simple like jaywalking. You have to define "intersection," whether it covers all roads that a vehicle could possibly be on, time of day consideration, what the precise definition of an intersection is if it's not marked, whether a bicycle is covered, penalties, enforcement authority, proof required to convict, whether the law can be modified by a city or county, how are parades and demonstrations handled, exceptions for emergency personnel, the list goes on and on.

If it's passed, it will be printed in one color without strike throughs, etc. It will be as neat as they can make it.

Philosophy? Perhaps if you're thinking of political philosophy, ok. Again though, that was not what I understood that you wanted.

Again, my apologies.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Say it more simply? Generally, no. Some times it is possible and I heartily approve of that. Our legal system (properly) requires that the foreseeable events in a law are covered, and that only the changes deemed necessary are made. It's a legal problem, sure, but laws by definition are legal, and have to stand up to the attacks of lawyers and courts

You make it sound like a good thing, but if it where not so, would lawyers and courts even be required? Are they a good thing, really?

I think not.

Why is law preferable to chaos? Because it sounds better right? But did you actually bother thinking about it some more?

If we wheren´t governed by our own artificial laws, then we would be governed by our feelings right?

Now what sounds better? Natural feelings or artifically constructed laws in conflict with nature?

Maybe now you are starting to see the philosophical dimensions embedded here?