Hacker News Books

If you really believe that, read "Legal Myths about Assange Extradition" at http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-... or Justice for Assange's myth debunker @ https://justice4assange.com .. or go straight to the leaked Swedish police transcripts and make up your own mind.

> For one thing, the class fulfills one of Harvard's more challenging core requirements, Ethical Reasoning.

According to http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/courses-exams/courses-i... so does Michael Sandel's Justice course, which can be viewed here: http://www.justiceharvard.org/

It's one of the most amazing lecture series I've seen. I can't see how the one given by Puett could possibly be any better... But then again, Harvard is supposed to be one of the best schools in the world, maybe Puett really offers a better course...

With regard to the first point, I meant those particular religious texts you cited. I'm a huge fan of nonfiction books in general.

When I open NYT, Politico, and WaPo I see:

> Justice Dept. Plans to File Antitrust Charges Against Google in Coming Weeks
> Justice Department expected to file antitrust suit against Google
> The Justice Department could file a lawsuit against Google this month, overriding skepticism from its own top lawyers

Based off of this, I figure the Justice Department will probably do some antitrust stuff involving Google in the near future.

It's probably not 100% a sure thing that it's going to happen, but it probably will, and it's now on my radar to keep an eye on since that might actually wind up being a big deal.

That's what I want out of the news. I'm not sure what else I would expect? If I open and read any of those articles, there will be different takes on the Justice department's plan to go after google, and I can read into those however much I want, but the core facts are that the Justice department is planning on going after Google. I don't think that's made up, and I think antitrust + big tech is a pretty important issue to keep an eye on.

I won’t criticize you because your ideas. Still, I’d like you to know how a society would work if we were more aligned to think like that.

There is a government philosophy called utilitarianism. It’s based on the premise that a policy is good if and only if it increases overall happiness in a society thus, ends justify the means.

It’s totally valid to be an utilitarian. Nonetheless, you have to accept two premises.

1. There is no individual rights.
2. Measuring happiness is a trivialization of human experience (ex. How many people would need to be given an iPhone in order to justify the torturing an assassination of a child?).

Try reading Justice by Michael Sandel if you want to learn more.

Clarifying, I did "quit" my job, though likely I'd have been dismissed, or simply worked myself to death. This was after the settlement was signed, and I knew full well when I signed it that there would be no relief--that I'd have to continue full alimony payments regardless of what salary, if any, I could get in the future.

The judicial leeway comment was a separate issue, and was simply the consensus of several lawyers. I could have rolled the dice, but at best that would merely have decreased my ex's take, and her kids' financial situation, not improved mine. Every extra hour spent in a divorce does significant damage to your end net worth.

From a legal point of view, if you are or have recently made a lot of money, the ironclad assumption is that you will continue to do so, at least through the duration of alimony. There will be no mercy. On the flip side, at least in my case, the starting assumption is that the recipient will be able to earn zero, regardless or their skills or prior employment.

As for "fair", I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Justice is just a fairy tale in my book.