That was a terribly bloated speech for a TED video. What he said shouldn't have actually taken more the 3-5 minutes.

I'm not particularly impressed with his reasoning as to how we got here. It seems to me that we got here because we let the lawyers write the laws...and that leads to laws that nobody -but- a lawyer can understand. Simplifying the law is a wonderful idea, but it won't happen as long as it's in the interests of those writing the laws to keep them complex.

I'm also not too comfortable with his "solution" of putting the power back into the hands of judges and officials. That leads to highly inconsistent application and interpretation of the laws. Giving judges more control will make the best case scenarios better, but the worst abuses will get even worse. And as he already noted, if 98% of cases are simple to decide, clearly even a small percentage of problems has a disproportionate effect on perceptions. I don't really see how that improves the level of trust we have in the law. Inconsistency in the application of the law is a -huge- problem. Most of the distrust of the government we see today is caused by perceived inconsistencies (the rich get treated better than the poor or middle class, for a number of reasons).

*nochannel *law *controversy

This video has been removed from all channels (News, Law, Controversy, Fail) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by xxovercastxx. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Law) - requested by xxovercastxx.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by xxovercastxx.

>> ^Stormsinger:
That was a terribly bloated speech for a TED video. What he said shouldn't have actually taken more the 3-5 minutes.


i disagree (snort!) i liked his examples and anecdotes as entertaining. Then on the other had i got bored in the middle and started browsing in another window

Will this actually have an effect?

*quality. his 3rd point is the whole point of having a civilization: a thin layer of force making a bubble of calm in a sea of chaos.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Crake.

I especially liked the way he described the playgrounds with the disappearing seesaws and monkey bars. I was a coming of age boy when the removed the monkey bars, which seemed to stand more than a story high for my young self, and replaced them with some kind of plastic paradise that looked like it was for 5 year olds.

Now, granted, even when I was a kid (of about 8-10) I thought those monkey bars were dangerous as hell, BUT there was something that was simply more "fun" about them when compared to the plastic jungle gym. It was refreshing to have this verbalized in what I would describe as "accurate" language. There was no risk involved so there seemed to be a smaller fun factor.

I will say that when I've been driving and I get caught in a song or something I'll start to speed. I'll zig and zag in between cars, and just before I get a taste of the wind in my hair I usually have this talk with myself where I stop and say "Oh shit this is illegal!" Ahh Monkey Bars, you'll always have a special place in my heart.

There is a reason it's officially listed in the Book of Awesome: http://1000awesomethings.com/2008/07/18/980-playground-equipment/

See also the alleged "Worlds Most Dangerous Playground Equipment": http://trueslant.com/joshuakucera/2009/06/25/the-worlds-most-dangerous-piece-of-playground-equipment-found-in-greenland/

It's funny that the author finished the article with "Whatever the case, I have to admit it looks pretty fun"
_____________________________________________________________________

See also, ALSO: THE TRAGIC DEATH OF THE COOLEST PLAYGROUND EVER: http://www.retrocrush.com/archive2006/sfoplayground/

Always interesting to hear someone talk about *politics, and give what sounds like a coherent philosophy, and yet not have it be obviously categorized as left or right.

Adding video to channels (Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

In all honesty the problem with the legal system is at a much higher level. The real problem is that it is not really interested in either Truth or Justice. The nature of U.S. law is such that the prosecutor tries to extract the maximum penalty while the defense tries to extract the minimum penalty - and the guilt or innocence of the defendant is only tangentally important to either. Theoretically the truth or some semblance of it comes out in a trial, but good attorneys try to suppress any or all data that would damage their case. The end result is a system where the truth and justice play second fiddle to exaggeration and obfuscation - all too often resulting in the opposite of justice.

A real legal system would be very simple and arrive at real truth, and only then applying the best justice a flawed, earthly system can arrive at.

I recommend his book "The Death of Common Sense." I see "defensive medicine" practiced on a daily basis. It's pervasive and physicians are compelled to do it, despite knowing it's unnecessary. They know it sometimes puts patients at greater risk from unnecessary invasive procedures. The threat of lawsuits DOES NOT MAKE MEDICINE MORE SAFE. It just makes physicians feel vulnerable and depressed.

I like TED, always something good there.

Specially when they have James Randi on.

Is he arguing for the abolition of due process? Ah, I see he was saying that the rise of due process was had a correlation with something.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.