#Comparative analysis of Paul and Joseph Smith | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

joshuajacksonlyblog · 6 years ago

Text

Blinded by the Light: Why Top Economists Are Wrong About Bitcoin

A long list of award winning economists have railed against Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, predicting spectacular failure. Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman has predicted the total collapse of Bitcoin because of its deflationary nature, going as far to call it “evil.”

Another winner of the Nobel prize for economics and a professor at Yale University, Robert Shiller, compared Bitcoin to failed currency experiments of the past.

Ken Rogoff, former IMF chief economist and Harvard professor, predicts that Bitcoin’s (BTC) 00 price will go to $100 dollars, and Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz believes cryptocurrencies will be destroyed by governments once they get big enough.

So what’s with all the hate?

The Future of Power

The modern science of economics is usually traced back to Adam Smith’s seminal book, “The Wealth of Nations.” As the title suggests, Smith’s analysis was mainly concerned with understanding why some countries get rich and others don’t.

Therein lies the reason that so many otherwise brilliant minds don’t seem to understand Bitcoin. Bitcoin simply isn’t a country — and it never will be, even though some people want this to be the case.

There is no shortage of acclaimed academics singing Bitcoin’s praises, however, among the Austrian school of free-market, libertarian economics. The key difference here is the vision of the state. Libertarian fans of Bitcoin view governments as an oppressive force and want to see governmental power held in check.

Trashing Bitcoin = No-Coiner Job Security

Mainstream economists (like most Nobel prize winners), on the other hand, spend their whole careers studying issues of how to manage and protect the current system. For example, Paul Krugman’s Ph.D. thesis was on the subject of how governments should manage currency exchange rates. This is something that is impossible to do with cryptocurrency since the policy is already hard-coded into the protocol.

If cryptocurrencies see widespread adoption, it means that a large portion of mainstream economics will become obsolete- and many economists with it.

This is no surprise — a recent study estimated that 47% of jobs will disappear within the next 25 years. Why should economists be an exception?

This is why Andreas Antonopoulos once said that comparing Bitcoin to traditional currencies is kind of like comparing a giant meteor to dinosaurs. It’s not really a competition — it’s just a matter of time.

Money as a Service

The skills of economics are fundamental and will not lose their usefulness. The main models that are likely to lose out are monetary policy tools. These tools allow central banks to manipulate economies by adjusting the supply and demand of currencies via interest rates and, of course, the good old “print-more-money” technique.

Some think of these services as governmental services but, in reality, issuing currency has always been a private service like any other- it just so happens that bankers formed a cartel and got governments to enforce a monopoly. For the first time in decades and maybe centuries, cryptocurrency is breaking the monopoly on money.

For some, this is is a scary prospect. Is the economy going to collapse without puppet masters manipulating supply and demand? Well, it’s definitely going to collapse if the people in charge keep managing it. Maybe people should have the right to choose if they want to participate in a currency or not. If it collapses, make better choices next time.

Can Bitcoin help solve the management problems of mainstream economics? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Images courtesy of Bitcoinist archives, Shutterstock.

The post Blinded by the Light: Why Top Economists Are Wrong About Bitcoin appeared first on Bitcoinist.com.

from Cryptocracken Tumblr https://ift.tt/2xZ8uOV via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Cryptocracken Tumblr

0 notes

maxwellyjordan · 6 years ago

Text

Empirical SCOTUS: Is Kavanaugh as conservative as expected?

On Monday, April 1, 2019, the Supreme Court decided the case Bucklew v. Precythe, with the five conservative justices in the majority and the four liberals in dissent. To some, including legal scholar and CNN analyst Steve Vladeck, this ruling ushered in a new conservative court without the moderating anchor of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Going even further, Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern referred to the decision as “beyond appalling,” while Think Progress’ Ian Millhiser described it as “the most bloodthirsty and cruel death penalty opinion of the modern era.” This decision at the very least separates this nascent court like never before as, for the first time, the current justices divided along ideological lines in a highly divisive case dealing with civil liberties (The justices also split 5-4 along the same lines in the immigration detention case Nielsen v. Preap.).

By focusing on these decisions, along with some of his other rulings including his dissent in the abortion stay application June Medical v. Gee, Kavanaugh can easily be characterized as another justice on the far right who will inevitably push the Supreme Court into a conservative era perhaps like never seen before. Indeed, it would be surprising to find Kavanaugh on opposite sides of an abortion or death penalty decision from his conservative counterparts. That said, Kavanaugh’s first set of votes on the Supreme Court presents a picture that may (1) differentiate him from some of the other conservative justices and (2) help us understand where exactly he fits on the court’s ideological spectrum. This post uses data on current justices’ first sets of cases when they joined the Supreme Court to set a baseline for comparison to Kavanaugh’s votes thus far in the 2018-2019 term.

Justices prior to Kavanaugh

Justice Clarence Thomas, the longest-serving current justice, was in the court’s majority 22 times and in dissent four times in his first set of decisions in orally argued cases. (To track Kavanaugh the cap was set to 22 decisions, yet all decisions made on the same day as a justice’s 22nd day were incorporated into this analysis.)

Click to enlarge.

There were eight Supreme Court compositions in Thomas’ first set of decisions (Note that in these graphs when vote spaces are empty and without an intervening line, these votes are the same as the votes above until the next line is reached.). The court was unanimous in 17 out of the first 26 cases in which Thomas voted. Thomas voted most closely with Justice Antonin Scalia. The only case in which their votes were not the same was Dawson v. Delaware, in which Thomas was the lone dissenting justice. On the other end of the spectrum, Thomas and Justice Harry Blackmun voted in divergent directions in nine of these first 26 decisions, and Thomas and Justice John Paul Stevens came out on opposite sides in eight. Thomas’ early voting decisions already placed him toward the right edge of the court ideologically.

The next justice to join the Supreme Court was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993. Ginsburg is the only sitting justice who was in the majority in every one of the first set of cases she heard on the court.

Click to enlarge.

Fewer of Ginsburg’s first set of cases were decided by a unanimous Supreme Court than Thomas’, with 10. Also unlike Thomas, who had no 5-4 decisions in his first set of cases, Ginsburg had two. She authored the first, Ratzlaf v. United States, which dealt with criminal bank fraud. The majority in that case was ideologically mixed, with Stevens, Kennedy, Scalia and Justice David Souter joining Ginsburg. Kennedy authored the second, United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, which examined forfeiture rules for property associated with criminal violations. Ginsburg was in the majority, along with Kennedy and the liberal justices Souter, Stevens and Blackmun.

Focusing on voting relationships, at one end of the spectrum Ginsburg voted in the opposite direction from two justices – Blackmun and Thomas — five times. Contrastingly, she was closest to Souter, who only voted once in the direction opposite to hers. These early pictures of Ginsburg’s and Thomas’ voting behavior already begin to portend how they will decide cases, and which justices they will often side with, throughout their tenure on the court.

Fast-forwarding to 2005, we next look to Chief Justice John Roberts’ first set of decisions on the court.

Click to enlarge.

Roberts was in dissent twice and in the majority 23 times in his first 25 decisions. He voted on the same side as Scalia in each of these decisions. He voted in the direction opposite to Stevens’ most often, with five such instances. Roberts was also involved in two 5-4 decisions in his first set of cases. He was in the conservative majority for the first, Brown v. Sanders, an Eighth Amendment capital-punishment case, along with Scalia, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Kennedy and Thomas. Roberts was in dissent in the other case, Central Va. Community College v. Katz, which looked at sovereign immunity as a defense in bankruptcy proceedings, joining conservatives Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. These decisions early in Roberts’ career on the Supreme Court already aligned him with the more conservative justices and placed him in opposition to the court’s liberals.

Now focusing on President Donald Trump’s nominees to the Supreme Court, the timing of Justice Neil Gorsuch’s nomination differed a bit from the other justices previously described, as he began his career on the court toward the end of a term rather than at the beginning.

Click to enlarge.

Gorsuch dissented four times in this set of decisions and he was in the majority on 20 occasions. At both ends of the spectrum, he voted on the opposite side from liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor eight times, and he was only once on the opposite side of a vote from Thomas. Because Gorsuch began his work on the court toward the end of the 2016-2017 term, and the court tends to decide its more contentious cases near the end of its terms, his first set of decisions involved more 5-4 votes than the first sets of any of the other justices, with five. From the 2016-2017 term, he was in dissent in McWilliams v. Dunn along with conservatives Justice Samuel Alito, Roberts and Thomas. In the second 5-4 decision he was in a conservative majority along with Kennedy, Roberts, Alito and Thomas in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc. The majority composition was the same for the court’s 5-4 decision in Davila v. Davis. At the beginning of the 2017-2018 term, Gorsuch was in dissent in Artis v. District of Columbia along with conservatives Thomas, Alito and Kennedy, and he authored the majority opinion in Murphy v. Smith, which was joined by Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy. In Gorsuch’s case, we can see his conservative contours taking shape with this early set of decisions.

Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh’s first set of decisions places him to the right of the Supreme Court, but he doesn’t align with the right to the same degree as some of his more senior colleagues on the court.

Click to enlarge.

Kavanaugh aligned most closely with Roberts, as they both voted in the same direction in all but one of Kavanaugh’s first set of decisions. After Roberts, Kavanaugh voted in the same direction as Alito in all but two instances and Breyer in all but three instances. This places Kavanaugh in an interesting space that might, at least initially, not be as far to the right as some of his conservative allies on the court.

As previously mentioned, Kavanaugh has participated in two 5-4 decisions thus far. In both Nielsen and Bucklew, the Supreme Court split along ideological lines with Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in the majority, and Justices Elena Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Breyer in dissent. These decisions also show the potential for a strong conservative majority when all five of the conservative justices’ views are aligned.

To examine Kavanaugh’s voting alignments at a more granular level, we can look at his agreement levels with each of the individual justices. The justices are split into the liberal and conservative sets. The figures show when Kavanaugh was in the majority or dissent on the X-axis, and when each of the other justices was in the majority and dissent on the Y-axis. The justices’ votes are aligned when they are both in majority or dissent (quadrants four and two), and they are not aligned when one is in majority and the other is in dissent (quadrants one and three).

Click to enlarge.

Kavanaugh voted along the same lines as Breyer more often than with any of the other liberal justices on the Court, at almost 86 percent of the time so far this term. He then voted alongside Kagan in 81 percent of the decisions in which he participated. Kavanaugh next aligned with both Ginsburg and Sotomayor just over 76 percent of the time so far this term.

These percentages of association with the liberal justices become even more meaningful when compared with the same figures for the conservative justices.

Click to enlarge.

Kavanaugh voted on the same side as Roberts more often than with any of the other justices, at approximately 95 percent of the time. He voted alongside Alito the next most often, at 90 percent of the time. The somewhat surprising finding is that he voted with Breyer more often than with Gorsuch or Thomas. He voted with Gorsuch in 80.95 percent of his votes, which is the same frequency of voting alignment he shared with Kagan. Kavanaugh voted equally least frequently with Thomas, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, all at just over 76 percent of the time.

Although Kavanaugh is perhaps a milder conservative than expected at this point in the 2018-2019 term, he sided with the conservatives in the two cases in which his vote made the biggest difference – Bucklew v. Precythe and Nielsen v. Preap. It will not be surprising to see Kavanaugh side with the conservatives in these highly contentious cases, but it will be interesting to see if Kavanaugh and Roberts (whose possible shift to a more moderate position on the court was discussed in a recent post) make up the more moderate end of the conservative spectrum, with Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas more toward the edge of the continuum.

Voting composition figures for the remaining justices’ first set of votes can be found below.

Click to enlarge.

This post was originally published at Empirical SCOTUS.

The post Empirical SCOTUS: Is Kavanaugh as conservative as expected? appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/empirical-scotus-is-kavanaugh-as-conservative-as-expected/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

#law #justice

0 notes

tannertoctoo-blog · 8 years ago

Text

July 19, 2017

Environmental Ethics, Vol. 38, #4, 2016 Erkenntnis, Vol. 82, #4, 2017 FPQ: Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, Vol. 3, #2, 2017 Journal of Nietzsche Studies, Vol. 48, #2, 2017 Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 46, #4, 2017 Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 113, #12, 2016 Journal of Practical Ethics, Vol. 5, #1, 2017 Journal of the History of Philosophy, Vol. 55, #3, 2017 Mind, Vol. 126, #502, 2017 Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Vol. 6, 2016 Philosophy Compass, Vol. 12, #7, 2017 Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 95, #1, 2017

Environmental Ethics, Vol. 38, #4, 2016 News and Notes Features Tom Dedeurwaerdere, Benjamin Six. Toward a Broadened Ethical Pluralism in Environmental Ethics: From Bryan Norton’s Discursive Ethics to William James’ Experiential Pluralism. Lantz Fleming Miller. Individual Responsibility for Environmental Degradation: The Moral and Practical Route to Change. Discussion Papers Lawrence E. Cahoone. Is Stellar Nucleosynthesis a Good Thing? Vincent Blok. Thinking the Earth: Critical Reflections on Quentin Meillassoux’s and Heidegger’s Concept of the Earth. Brendan Mahoney. Engaging the Sublime without Distance: Environmental Ethics and Aesthetic Experience. Neall Pogue. The Religious Right’s Compassionate Steward and Conservationist: The Lost Philosophies of Pat Robertson. Book Reviews Steven Fesmire reviews Bryan G. Norton's Sustainable Values, Sustainable Change: A Guide to Environmental Decision Making. Bernard Daley Zaleha reviews Lucas F. Johnston's Religion and Sustainability: Social Movements and the Politics of the Environment. Jeremy Bendik-Keymer reviews Steven Vogel's Thinking like a Mall: Environmental Philosophy after the End of Nature. Referees 2016 and Index. Back to top

Erkenntnis, Vol. 82, #4, 2017 Original Research Daniel Enrique Kalpokas. Experience and Justification: Revisiting McDowell’s Empiricism. Colin R. Caret. The Collapse of Logical Pluralism has been Greatly Exaggerated. Christian Lowe. Boltzmannian Immortality. Jesse R. Steinberg, Alan M. Steinberg. A Multiply Qualified Conditional Analysis of Disposition Ascription: Mapping the Conceptual Topography of Ceteris Paribus. James DiFrisco. Time Scales and Levels of Organization. Jan Almäng. An Argument for Shape Internalism. Gregg D. Caruso, Stephen G. Morris. Compatibilism and Retributivist Desert Moral Responsibility: On What is of Central Philosophical and Practical Importance. Joshua Spencer. Counting on Strong Composition as Identity to Settle the Special Composition Question. Sander Verhaegh. Blurring Boundaries: Carnap, Quine, and the Internal–External Distinction. David Alexander. Unjustified Defeaters. Gil Sagi. Contextualism, Relativism and the Liar. Lorraine Juliano Keller. Against Naturalized Cognitive Propositions. Back to top

FPQ: Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, Vol. 3, #2, 2017 Symposium on Catharine A. MacKinnon's Toward a Feminist Theory of the State Articles Lori Watson. Introduction: Symposium on Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, Twenty-Five Years Later Catharine MacKinnon. Feminism, and Continental Philosophy: Comments on Toward a Feminist Theory of the State—Twenty-Five Years Later. Natalie Nenadic. 'We Must Find Words or Burn': Speaking Out against Disciplinary Silencing. Susan J. Brison. On the Politics of Coalition. Elena Ruíz and Kristie Dotson. Judging Women: Twenty-Five Years Further Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Clare Chambers. Response to Five Philosophers: Toward a Feminist Theory of the State Some Decades Later. Catharine A. MacKinnon. Response to Five Philosophers: Toward a Feminist Theory of the State Some Decades Later. Back to top

Journal of the History of Philosophy, Vol. 55, #3, 2017 Books That Shaped the Historiography of Philosophy Paul Guyer. The Bounds of Sense and the Limits of Analysis. Articles Carlo Davia. Aristotle and the Endoxic Method. Ruth Boeker. Locke on Personal Identity: A Response to the Problems of His Predecessors. Lawrnece Pasternack. Restoring Kant’s Conception of the Highest Good. Christopher Yeomans. Perspectives without Privileges: The Estates in Hegel’s Political Philosophy. Colin Koopman. The Will, the will to Believe, and William James: An Ethics of Freedom as Self-Transformation. Fabio Gironi. A Kantian Disagreement between Father and Son: Roy Wood Sellars and Wilfrid Sellars on the Categories. Book Reviews David Ebrey reviews The Possibility of Inquiry: Meno's Paradox from Socrates to Sextus by Gail Fine. Jakob Leth Fink reviews Levels of Argument: A Comparative Study of Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics by Dominic Scott. Stephen D. Dumont reviews On Being and Cognition: Ordinatio by John Duns Scotus. Mary Sirridge reviews Nicholas of Amsterdam: Commentary on the Old Logic by Egbert P. Bos. Erik De Bom reviews Truth and Irony: Philosophical Meditations on Erasmus by Terence J. Martin. Andreas Blank reviews Julius Caesar Scaliger, Renaissance Reformer of Aristotelianism: A Study of His Exotericae Exercitationes by Kuni Sakamoto. Yitzhak Y. Melamed reviews The Influence of Abraham Cohen de Herrera's Kabbalah on Spinoza's Metaphysics by Miquel Beltràn. Michael A. Rosenthal reviews The Collected Works of Spinoza by Benedictus de Spinoza. Kristen Irwin reviews Bayle, Jurieu, and the Dictionnaire Historique et Critique by Mara van der Lugt. F. Scott Scribner reviews Fichte's Addresses to the German Nation Reconsidered ed. by Daniel Breazeale and Tom Rockmore. Lawrence J. Hatab reviews Nietzsche's Earth: Great Events, Great Politics by Gary Shapiro. Andrew Bowie reviews Adorno and Existence by Peter E. Gordon. Books Received Back to top

Journal of Nietzsche Studies, Vol. 48, #2, 2017 Abbreviations and Citations of Friedrich Nietzsche’s Works Proceedings from The North American Nietzsche Society Paul Katsafanas. NANS Editorial Note. Christopher Janaway. On the Very Idea of “Justifying Suffering”. Beatrix Himmelmann. Nietzsche’s Ethics of Power and the Ideas of Right, Justice, and Dignity Matt Dill. On Parasitism and Overflow in Nietzsche’s Doctrine of Will to Power. Akshay Ganesh. Nietzsche on Honor and Empathy. Daniel I. Harris. Nietzsche and Aristotle on Friendship and Self-Knowledge. Patrick Hassan. Does Rarity Confer Value?: Nietzsche on the Exceptional Individual. Book Reviews Interanimations: Receiving Modern German Philosophy by Robert B. Pippin, and: Nietzsche, Psychology, and First Philosophy by Robert B. Pippin. Review by Christopher Fowles. Nietzsche and The Birth of Tragedy by Paul Raimond Daniels. Review by Vinod Acharya. Nietzsche, Tension, and the Tragic Disposition by Matthew Tones Review by Elisabeth Flucher. Nietzsche nella Rivoluzione conservatrice ed. by Francesco Cattaneo, Carlo Gentili, and Stefano Marino. Review by Selena Pastorino. Nietzsche and Dostoevsky: On the Verge of Nihilism by Paolo Stellino. Review by Christoph Schuringa. Back to top

Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 46, #4, 2017 Original Papers Nicholas Asher, Soumya Paul, Antoine Venant. Message Exchange Games in Strategic Contexts. Richard Booth, Jake Chandler. The Irreducibility of Iterated to Single Revision. Ken Akiba. A Unification of Two Approaches to Vagueness: The Boolean Many-Valued Approach and the Modal-Precisificational Approach. Andrew Tedder. On Structural Features of the Implication Fragment of Frege’s Grundgesetze. Elisa Paganini. Vague Objects within Classical Logic and Standard Mereology, and without Indeterminate Identity. Back to top

Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 113, #12, 2016 Articles Wade Munroe. Words on Psycholinguistics. Andrea Iacona. Two Notions of Logical Form. New Books Back to top

Journal of Practical Ethics, Vol. 5, #1, 2017 Articles Lea Ypi. Structural Injustice and the Place of Attachment. Stephen M. Gardiner. Accepting Collective Responsibility for the Future. Masaki Ichinose. The Death Penalty Debate: Four Problems and New Philosophical Perspectives. Back to top

Mind, Vol. 126, #502, 2017 Articles Donovan Wishon. Russellian acquainatace and Frege’s Puzzle. Luca Incurvati; Julien Murzi. Maximally Consistent Sets of Instances of Naive Comprehension. Igor Douven; Lieven Decock. What Verities May Be. Daniel Waxman. Deflationism, Arithmetic, and the Argument from Conservativeness. Jack Spencer. Able to Do the Impossible. Stephan Krämer. Everything, and Then Some. Anil Gomes. Naïve Realism In Kantian Phrase. Discussions Jake Chandler. Preservation, Commutativity and Modus Ponens: Two Recent Triviality Results. Richard Bradley. Supporters and Underminers: Reply to Chandler. Hans Rott. Preservation and Postulation: Lessons from the New Debate on the Ramsey Test. Book Reviews The Logical Structure of Kinds, by Eric Funkhouser. Review by Joseph Laporte. The Possibility of Inquiry: Meno’s Paradox from Socrates to Sextus, by Gail Fine. Review by David Bronstein. Aesthetics as Philosophy of Perception, by Bence Nanay. Review by Ophelia Deroy. Persons, Interests, and Justice, by Nils Holtug. Review by Tim Campbell. Between Probability and Certainty: What Justifies Belief, by Martin Smith. Review by Kelly Becker. Back to top

Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Vol. 6, 2016 (located on Tanner New Journal shelf) Acknowledgments // List of Contributors Introduction by Mark Timmons Articles Stephen Darwall: Taking Account of Character and Being an Accountable Person. Claudia Card: Taking Pride in Being Bad. Kate Abramson: Character as a Mode of Evaluation. Jack Woods: The Normative Force of Promising. Hallie Liberto: Promissory Obligation: Against a Unified Account. Susan Wolf: Two Concepts of Rule Utilitarianism. David Schmitz: After Solipsism. Barry Maguire: Extrinsic Value and the Separability of Reasons. Kenneth Walden: The Relativity of Ethical Explanation. Paul Hurley: Two Senses of Moral Verdict and Moral Overridingness. Erich Hatala Matthes: Love in Spite of. Gilbert Harman: Moral Reasoning. Index Back to top

Philosophy Compass, Vol. 12, #7, 2017 Naturalistic Philosophy John Turri. Experimental work on the norms of assertion. Marco J. Nathan and Guillermo Del Pinal. The Future of Cognitive Neuroscience? Reverse Inference in Focus. Philosophy of Religion Michael Almeida. Theistic Modal Realism I: The Challenge of Theistic Actualism. Michael Almeida. Theistic Modal Realism II: Theoretical Benefits. Bronwyn Finnigan. Buddhism and animal ethics. Back to top

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 95, #1, 2017 Articles Peter Millican. Hume’s Fork, and his Theory of Relations. Ryan Wasserman. Vagueness and the Laws of Metaphysics. Simon M. Huttegger. Inductive Learning in Small and Large Worlds. Jonas Åkerman. Indexicals and Reference-Shifting: Towards a Pragmatic Approach. Weng Hong Tang. Transparency and Partial Beliefs. Una Stojnić. One's Modus Ponens: Modality, Coherence and Logic. Book Symposium : Outside Color Mazviita Chirimuuta. Précis of Outside Color. Joshua Gert. Outside Color from Just Outside. Anil Gupta. M. Chirimuuta's Adverbialism about Color. Mohan Matthen. Realism, Relativism, Adverbialism: How Different are they? Comments on Mazviita Chirimuuta's Outside Color. Mazviita Chirimuuta. Replies. Back to top

0 notes

mindfulldsliving · 14 days ago

Text

Unpacking 2 Corinthians 11:14: Moroni vs. Deception

Moroni Appears to Joseph Smith in His Room (The Angel Moroni Appears to Joseph Smith), by Tom Lovell 2 Corinthians 11:14 and the Angel Moroni: Dispelling Myths About Satanic Deception Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 11:14 caution us about Satan’s ability to disguise himself as an angel of light. This verse is often cited in criticism of Joseph Smith’s account of the Angel Moroni’s visitation,…

#2 Corinthians 11:14 angel of light #Angel Moroni and 2 Corinthians 11:14 #Angel Moroni LDS perspective #Angel Moroni scriptural references #Angel Moroni vs angel of light #Biblical analysis of angel of light #Biblical verses cited by Angel Moroni #Differences between Joseph Smith and Muhammad #Does 2 Corinthians 11:14 refer to the Angel Moroni?#Evangelical criticism of LDS doctrine #False apostles in 2 Corinthians 11 #Fruits of the restored gospel in Joseph Smith’s teachings #Historical evidence of the Angel Moroni’s visitation #How do Latter-day Saints interpret the angel of light?#How does the Book of Mormon testify of Christ?#How Joseph Smith encountered the Angel Moroni #Joseph Smith angel of light claim #Joseph Smith Book of Mormon origins #Latter-day Saint view on 2 Corinthians 11:14 #LDS explanation for angel of light accusations #Paul’s warnings about false apostles and LDS beliefs #Testing spirits in 1 John 4:1 #Was Joseph Smith deceived by an angel of light?#What does 2 Corinthians 11:14 mean in context?#What scriptures did the Angel Moroni quote?#Why do critics compare Joseph Smith to Muhammad?

0 notes

mindfulldsliving · 15 days ago

Text

Responding to Robin Schumacher’s Critique: Joseph Smith’s First Vision and Apostolic Parallels

Robin Schumacher’s op-ed comparing Joseph Smith to the Apostle Paul raises a familiar yet thought-provoking question: can Joseph’s First Vision truly align with Paul’s divine encounter? For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this discussion touches on fundamental beliefs about prophecy, revelation, and the foundation of their faith. Critics often challenge the First…

#Apologetics against Latter-day Saint claims #Best resources for understanding Mormonism #Bible #Biblical prophecies and modern prophets #Biblical scholars on Joseph Smith #Biblical theophanies #Can Joseph Smith’s visions be trusted?#Christian apologetics conference topics #Christian critiques of Mormonism #Christianity #Comparison of Paul and Joseph Smith #Critiques of Joseph Smith’s First Vision from a Biblical perspective #Differences between Joseph Smith’s and Paul’s theophanies #Divine encounters in religious history #Faith and spiritual experiences in Christianity #Faith-based comparison of Joseph Smith and Paul #First Vision historical analysis #God #Historical evidence for Joseph Smith’s First Vision #Historical validity of the First Vision #How does Joseph Smith’s First Vision compare to Paul’s vision?#How to discuss Mormon beliefs with Christians #Is Joseph Smith a prophet like the Apostle Paul?#Jesus #Joseph Smith #Joseph Smith First Vision #Joseph Smith prophet claims #Joseph Smith vs Apostle Paul #Latter-day Saint apologetics #LDS and Evangelical Christian dialogue

0 notes

marymosley · 4 years ago

Text

New PatentlyO Law Journal Essay: Two Errors in the Ninth Circuit’s Qualcomm Opinion

New PatentlyO Law Journal article by Thomas F. Cotter, Taft Stettinius & Hollister Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School, and Innovators Network Foundation Intellectual Property Fellow. Professor Cotter is also the author of the Comparative Patent Remedies blog.

Abstract: On August 11, 2020, the Ninth Circuit handed down its opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., reversing the district court’s judgment in favor of the FTC. This essay argues that the Court of Appeals made two significant errors in its analysis. The first relates to the court’s failure to understand how Qualcomm’s conduct in the market for patent licenses affects competition in the complementary market for smartphone chips. The second concerns the court’s statement, at odds with the D.C. Circuit’s landmark decision in Microsoft, that if conduct “is not anticompetitive under § 1, the court need not separately analyze conduct under § 2.”

From the Introduction:

On August 11, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down its opinion in one of the most closely-watched, and potentially consequential, antitrust decisions in recent years, Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc.[1] The opinion, authored by Judge Consuelo Callahan and joined by Judges Johnnie Rawlinson and Stephen Murphy III, reversed the district court’s judgment in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).[2] Whether the FTC will pursue any further relief, by way of a petition for rehearing en banc or for certiorari, remains (as of this writing) uncertain. Regardless of whether it does or not, however, it is important to note two fundamental errors in the court’s analysis which, if not corrected or limited by subsequent case law, could lead to serious problems in future litigation.

Read Thomas F. Cotter, Two Errors in the Ninth Circuit’s Qualcomm Opinion, 2020 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1 (2020).

Prior Patently-O Patent L.J. Articles:

Jasper L. Tran & J. Sean Benevento, Alice at Five, 2019 PatentlyO L.J. 25 (2019) (Tran.2019.AliceatFive.pdf)

Bernard Chao, Implementing Apportionment, 2019 PatentlyO L.J. 20 (Chao.2019.ImplementingApportionment)

Jeremy C. Doerre, Is There Any Need to Resort to a § 101 Exception for Prior Art Ideas?, 2019 PatentlyO L.J. 10. (2019.Doerre.AnyNeed)

Colleen V. Chien, Piloting Applicant-Initiated 101 Deferral Through A Randomized Controlled Trial, 2019 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1. (2019.Chien.DeferringPSM)

David A. Boundy, Agency Bad Guidance Practices at the Patent and Trademark Office: a Billion Dollar Problem, 2018 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 20. (Boundy.2018.BadGuidance)

Colleen Chien and Jiun-Ying Wu, Decoding Patentable Subject Matter, 2018 PatentlyO Patent Law Journal 1.

Paul M. Janicke, Patent Venue: Half Christmas Pie, And Half Crow, 2017 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 13. (Janicke.2017.ChristmasPie.pdf)

Paul M. Janicke, The Imminent Outpouring from the Eastern District of Texas, 2017 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1 (2017) (Janicke.2017.Venue)

Mark A. Lemley, Erik Oliver, Kent Richardson, James Yoon, & Michael Costa, Patent Purchases and Litigation Outcomes, 2016 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 15 (Lemley.2016.PatentMarket)

Bernard Chao and Amy Mapes, An Early Look at Mayo’s Impact on Personalized Medicine, 2016 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 10 (Chao.2016.PersonalizedMedicine)

James E. Daily, An Empirical Analysis of Some Proponents and Opponents of Patent Reform, 2016 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1. (Daily.2016.Professors)

Tristan Gray–Le Coz and Charles Duan, Apply It to the USPTO: Review of the Implementation of Alice v. CLS Bank in Patent Examination, 2014 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1. (GrayLeCozDuan)

Robert L. Stoll, Maintaining Post-Grant Review Estoppel in the America Invents Act: A Call for Legislative Restraint, 2012 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1 (Stoll.2012.estoppel.pdf)

Paul Morgan, The Ambiguity in Section 102(a)(1) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 2011 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 29. (Morgan.2011.AIAAmbiguities)

Joshua D. Sarnoff, Derivation and Prior Art Problems with the New Patent Act, 2011 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 12 (sarnoff.2011.derivation.pdf)

Bernard Chao, Not So Confidential: A Call for Restraint in Sealing Court Records, 2011 Patently-O Patent Patent Law Journal 6 (chao.sealedrecords.pdf)

Benjamin Levi and Rodney R. Sweetland, The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Recommendations to the International Trade Commission (ITC): Unsound, Unmeasured, and Unauthoritative, 2011 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1 (levi.ftcunsound.pdf)

Kevin Emerson Collins, An Initial Comment on King Pharmaceuticals: The Printed Matter Doctrine as a Structural Doctrine and Its Implications for Prometheus Laboratories, 2010 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 111 (Collins.KingPharma.pdf)

Robert A. Matthews, Jr., When Multiple Plaintiffs/Relators Sue for the Same Act of Patent False Marking, 2010 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 95 (matthews.falsemarking.pdf)

Kristen Osenga, The Patent Office’s Fast Track Will Not Take Us in the Right Direction, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 89 (Osenga.pdf)

Peter S. Menell, The International Trade Commission’s Section 337 Authority, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 79

Donald S. Chisum, Written Description of the Invention: Ariad (2010) and the Overlooked Invention Priority Principle, 2010 Patently‐O Patent L.J. 72

Kevin Collins, An Initial Comment on Ariad: Written Description and the Baseline of Patent Protection for After-Arising Technology, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 24

Etan Chatlynne, Investigating Patent Law’s Presumption of Validity—An Empirical Analysis, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 37

Michael Kasdan and Joseph Casino, Federal Courts Closely Scrutinizing and Slashing Patent Damage Awards, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 24 (Kasdan.Casino.Damages)

Dennis Crouch, Broadening Federal Circuit Jurisprudence: Moving Beyond Federal Circuit Patent Cases, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 19 (2010)

Edward Reines and Nathan Greenblatt, Interlocutory Appeals of Claim Construction in the Patent Reform Act of 2009, Part II, 2010 Patently‐O Patent L.J. 7 (2010) (Reines.2010)

Gregory P. Landis & Loria B. Yeadon, Selecting the Next Nominee for the Federal Circuit: Patently Obvious to Consider Diversity, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 1 (2010) (Nominee Diversity)

Paul Cole, Patentability of Computer Software As Such, 2008 Patently-O Patent L.J. 1. (Cole.pdf)

John F. Duffy, The Death of Google’s Patents, 2008 Patently O-Pat. L.J. ___ (googlepatents101.pdf)

Mark R. Patterson, Reestablishing the Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion, 2007 Patently-O Patent L.J. 38

Arti K. Rai, The GSK Case: An Administrative Perspective, 2007 Patently-O Patent L.J. 36

Joshua D. Sarnoff, BIO v. DC and the New Need to Eliminate Federal Patent Law Preemption of State and Local Price and Product Regulation, 2007 Patently-O Patent L.J. 30 (Download Sarnoff.BIO.pdf)

John F. Duffy, Are Administrative Patent Judges Unconstitutional?, 2007 Patently-O Patent L.J. 21. (Duffy.BPAI.pdf)

Joseph Casino and Michael Kasdan, In re Seagate Technology: Willfulness and Waiver, a Summary and a Proposal, 2007 Patently-O Patent L.J. 1 (Casino-Seagate)

New PatentlyO Law Journal Essay: Two Errors in the Ninth Circuit’s Qualcomm Opinion published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/