I got Bing AI to give me a list of those who had made money out of 9/11 last night. Couldn't get it to do the same out of WW2 or Covid though. And it shut down when I asked it what the bad effects of AI would be.
As far as I discern AI is more of a toy than of use. If I ask hardcore evidence based questions programming refuses to allow deviation. If I want lit answers to lit questions it bores me.
The people's common law is the very simple principles of - Do no Harm, injury or loss.
Also the jury system of 12 is from actual common law.
No judge in a common law court, only a convenor or administrator.
King Alfred learned it from the people, rather than the Roman law he was instructed in via the 'church' which was/is the Roman empire, now called the Vatican/Roman Catholic Church.
Common law as used in the 'court' system is the equity side of things, if you can get the lying bastards to acknowledge it, whereas the cases generally brought to 'court' operate under Admiralty law (Roman, Law Merchant) as purely commercial transactions, via statute, otherwise known as corporate policy.
Depends which common law you mean. The common law of the legal system is judge made precedents, whereas the actual common law is that of the people, predating the Romans.
King Alfred, called 'the great' lived with the people when the Norsemen took his 'kingdom' and he learned of the common law of the people, in depth, at that time, and, as he was wont to do, he wrote it down, but it was considered Ancient Law even then.
The Law Merchant, Lex Mercatoria, stems from at least Roman times and is still current now. In NZ it is called the Bills of Exchange Act and I think it is S.48 where it states that Bills of Exchange Act is the Law Merchant. The Law Merchant is everything to do with commerce, and the system we suffer under is the commerce system. As far as I can tell, Roman, Canon, Ecclesiastic Law and Law Merchant are one and the same. All the 'courts' are Admiralty/commerce 'courts' operating under Law Merchant/Roman Law
In the Law that we're taught now there are basically two systems;
Common Law by precedent as you mentioned above (Judge made law you call it). In use in all the Commonwealth countries (except Scotland) and the US, Israel & a few other countries (Japan?).
or
Roman (or Napoleonic) Law as practiced by most of the European countries. Basically law by statute, none by precedent.
There is some overlap in the Common Law countries these days. We are more or less half Common law half Roman Law countries.
I don't know anything about the Law that you speak of there, King Alfred version.
Great article. Richard Carrier contends that the bible was written on behalf of the Flavian dynasty. Our 'laws' are based on Roman, Canon, Ecclesiatic, laws and are of course all about commerce.
This is an essay from when I was doing some history via a University that shall remain unnamed. I think by the fact that I was given an F for it (later changed to a B by the Lecturer after I challenged it) by some traditionalist tutor somewhere suggests that it was on the mark.
I suspect that over time that which is known as accurate shifts. Venerable Bede (who died in 735), writing 250 years after the events he describes, who first claimed that Roman Britain fell to invasion by Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Aside from the notion that the past was more conservative than we and held tradition longer I would agree that a gap of 250 years is curious. And likely a Victorian presupposition like Ossian. Victorian writers considered it perfectly acceptable to trace physical or ‘racial’ distinctions between those of ‘Jutish’ descent still living in Kent set against the Saxon or Angle peasantry of the west and north. Even today, some modern authorities claim to confirm Bede’s tripartite scheme using archaeological evidence, in particular the minor variations in the types of brooches and cremation urns found in early Anglo-Saxon burial sites.
I come back due to a very good example of Aristotle and teeth in women. He knew. He did not bother to find out. I would be unsurprised 250 years later by Bede having this knowing. Everyone thought so too probably-even residents of Kent likely held on to some idea of a voyage. So little primary material survives we build off fixed ideas that may well be astonishingly inaccurate. Reconstructing dead languages like "Proto-Germanic" is done by subtracting loan words first then building from fixed meanings to include reconstructed "Indo-European" languages and other languages thought close to the stem. The past is invented every day.
And then we get to Arthur and Camelot and where oh where in Britain was that. Robert Graves had some interesting theories about cross fertilization of myths across cultures. Jung thought of them as archetypes from the collective unconscious=more or less. There are some arcane secrets buried in histories- excavated from where they deviate from archaeology. Substack could be used by historians someday to piece together a thesis or three.
There's also the story of two Kentish brothers circa 6th CE who sound very much like two brothers from Athens circa 430CE or so, sorry the names of both elude my memory at the moment.
This is very good, wish you had more history assignments to research.
I've noticed that new ideas are not what academia is about - just about quoting other academics.
Stegiel is friends with AI so he can ask AI what AI thinks of your study.
I have more in storage. Was thinking of throwing one up a week or so.
Hah. No AI is an endless amusement. My cats are more truthful and more amusing but now and then I try to ease on in.
I got Bing AI to give me a list of those who had made money out of 9/11 last night. Couldn't get it to do the same out of WW2 or Covid though. And it shut down when I asked it what the bad effects of AI would be.
As far as I discern AI is more of a toy than of use. If I ask hardcore evidence based questions programming refuses to allow deviation. If I want lit answers to lit questions it bores me.
I agree. It's just a game to get it to say something that it's programmed not to say.
It is handy in business though. A letter can be drafted up on concepts in about 0.4 of a second.
Even funnier when I asked it to give me the bad effects of Bill Gates it gave me;
1. Had the chance to bankrupt Apple, didn't take it.
2. Bing was around before Google, Bing should be google.
This afternoon I was pondering how to ask if AI was Colossus. Baby steps to arrive to yes😀
The people's common law is the very simple principles of - Do no Harm, injury or loss.
Also the jury system of 12 is from actual common law.
No judge in a common law court, only a convenor or administrator.
King Alfred learned it from the people, rather than the Roman law he was instructed in via the 'church' which was/is the Roman empire, now called the Vatican/Roman Catholic Church.
Common law as used in the 'court' system is the equity side of things, if you can get the lying bastards to acknowledge it, whereas the cases generally brought to 'court' operate under Admiralty law (Roman, Law Merchant) as purely commercial transactions, via statute, otherwise known as corporate policy.
Admiralty Act and the Naval Prize Act.
Depends which common law you mean. The common law of the legal system is judge made precedents, whereas the actual common law is that of the people, predating the Romans.
King Alfred, called 'the great' lived with the people when the Norsemen took his 'kingdom' and he learned of the common law of the people, in depth, at that time, and, as he was wont to do, he wrote it down, but it was considered Ancient Law even then.
The Law Merchant, Lex Mercatoria, stems from at least Roman times and is still current now. In NZ it is called the Bills of Exchange Act and I think it is S.48 where it states that Bills of Exchange Act is the Law Merchant. The Law Merchant is everything to do with commerce, and the system we suffer under is the commerce system. As far as I can tell, Roman, Canon, Ecclesiastic Law and Law Merchant are one and the same. All the 'courts' are Admiralty/commerce 'courts' operating under Law Merchant/Roman Law
In the Law that we're taught now there are basically two systems;
Common Law by precedent as you mentioned above (Judge made law you call it). In use in all the Commonwealth countries (except Scotland) and the US, Israel & a few other countries (Japan?).
or
Roman (or Napoleonic) Law as practiced by most of the European countries. Basically law by statute, none by precedent.
There is some overlap in the Common Law countries these days. We are more or less half Common law half Roman Law countries.
I don't know anything about the Law that you speak of there, King Alfred version.
Yes, the reason the bible is always present at 'court' is that it is the foundational document.
Common law seems to have such an origin.
Great article. Richard Carrier contends that the bible was written on behalf of the Flavian dynasty. Our 'laws' are based on Roman, Canon, Ecclesiatic, laws and are of course all about commerce.
As is the Bible. Not sure the name of the woman who contended that but she's a Danish Lecturer at Copenhagen.
This is an essay from when I was doing some history via a University that shall remain unnamed. I think by the fact that I was given an F for it (later changed to a B by the Lecturer after I challenged it) by some traditionalist tutor somewhere suggests that it was on the mark.
I suspect that over time that which is known as accurate shifts. Venerable Bede (who died in 735), writing 250 years after the events he describes, who first claimed that Roman Britain fell to invasion by Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Aside from the notion that the past was more conservative than we and held tradition longer I would agree that a gap of 250 years is curious. And likely a Victorian presupposition like Ossian. Victorian writers considered it perfectly acceptable to trace physical or ‘racial’ distinctions between those of ‘Jutish’ descent still living in Kent set against the Saxon or Angle peasantry of the west and north. Even today, some modern authorities claim to confirm Bede’s tripartite scheme using archaeological evidence, in particular the minor variations in the types of brooches and cremation urns found in early Anglo-Saxon burial sites.
I come back due to a very good example of Aristotle and teeth in women. He knew. He did not bother to find out. I would be unsurprised 250 years later by Bede having this knowing. Everyone thought so too probably-even residents of Kent likely held on to some idea of a voyage. So little primary material survives we build off fixed ideas that may well be astonishingly inaccurate. Reconstructing dead languages like "Proto-Germanic" is done by subtracting loan words first then building from fixed meanings to include reconstructed "Indo-European" languages and other languages thought close to the stem. The past is invented every day.
Was thinking of removing the loan words from Maori to see where it owes its allegiance to.
https://theconversation.com/linguistics-locates-the-beginnings-of-the-austronesian-expansion-with-indigenous-seafaring-people-in-eastern-taiwan-186547
Mitochondrial DNA is supposed to suggest Taiwanese origins. Y DNA seems to be a different beast though which is a bit odd.
And then we get to Arthur and Camelot and where oh where in Britain was that. Robert Graves had some interesting theories about cross fertilization of myths across cultures. Jung thought of them as archetypes from the collective unconscious=more or less. There are some arcane secrets buried in histories- excavated from where they deviate from archaeology. Substack could be used by historians someday to piece together a thesis or three.
Indeed, a wealth of material on Substack.
Authorial research supplemented by commenter scrutiny and commenter anecdotes and reactions.
There's also the story of two Kentish brothers circa 6th CE who sound very much like two brothers from Athens circa 430CE or so, sorry the names of both elude my memory at the moment.
The Brothers is a recurring myth. For good reasons.
What are the good reasons.
Either deadly enemies or deadly allies. I have three- so there's a lot there too.
One less than you here. Can be foes, can be friends.