| msb@vex.net (Mark Brader): Feb 16 06:53AM -0600 Disclaimer: my remarks here relate only to this trivia contest and not to what I think the laws on these issues should be! Dan Tilque: > I counted the individual countries there separately. I'm not very happy > with this, but I wasn't sure how else to handle it. Any one have a > better idea? [1] Go back in time and write the question more explicitly. [2] Decide that you meant laws at the level of independent countries and the UK does not count, so the answer is 15. [3] Decide that you mean laws applicable anywhere in the independent country, so the UK qualifies and the answer is 16. [4] Decide that entrants could not have guessed whether #2 or #3 would apply, so treat either 15 or 16 as the right answer. But 17 is right out. (This one does not affect me; my guess was 12. I don't know if any of the issues I raise below would affect the results.) > those states, but still illegal according to federal law. But the Obama > administration has chosen not to enforce the federal laws in those > states[1], so those states have defacto legalization... Again, you needed a more explicit question. Because there was no penalty for wrong guesses, it made sense for me to include Colorado (the only one of those states I could think of at the time) in my answers, but I say that there is no such thing as "de facto legalization" and in particular that state legislation that contradicts federal law in an area of federal jurisdiction is ipso facto invalid. > > 3.a What polity is the latest to approve physician-assisted suicide? (2 > > pts) > Quebec, as of June 2014 [2] Invalid for the same reason as above. If physician-assisted suicide is not legal, then it's some form of culpable homicide, and criminal law in Canada falls under federal jurisdiction. > ruling (just a couple days before I posted this quiz, in fact). This > ruling requires Parliament to enact a law regulating it, but that law > has not yet been passed. More precisely, the ruling suspended itself for a year in order to allow a law to be passed that would make it moot, and now that I think about it, *that* makes Canada a wrong answer. > > 3.b Name three other polities with physician-assisted suicide. (1 pt each) ... > There've been court rulings in Montana and New Mexico, but no > legislation has been passed. In NM, the ruling is under appeal... No, on this question you didn't ask about laws. Court rulings should count as long as physician-assisted suicide is available in practice in those polities. -- Mark Brader | "In fact, that's not a bad epitaph. Toronto | Dennis Ritchie: he did one job, and he did it well." msb@vex.net | --Steve Summit My text in this article is in the public domain. |
| Erland Sommarskog <esquel@sommarskog.se>: Feb 16 05:29PM +0100 > and the UK does not count, so the answer is 15. > [3] Decide that you mean laws applicable anywhere in the independent > country, so the UK qualifies and the answer is 16. No, 17, since in this case also Mexico would qualifies. Thankfully, 15 or 17 does not matter what I can see. Rob was the only one who was awarded a point and he had 15. (The question permitted for +/-2.) I had 20, so I am out, unless someone finds an 18th country. > Again, you needed a more explicit question. Because there was no penalty > for wrong guesses, it made sense for me to include Colorado Well, as I understand it, Colorado was counted as a correct answer, and you were awarded a point for it. That said, I can't say that was entirely comfortable with the quiz, because these are questions with a lot of ifs and buts. Since it was a while since I had the honour to run a quiz, I happy to run one, but I will withhold my quiz for a day, in case there are any changes in the scoring. -- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, esquel@sommarskog.se |
| Erland Sommarskog <esquel@sommarskog.se>: Feb 16 10:25PM +0100 > I had 20, so I am out, unless someone finds an 18th country. No, I had 12. (But I had 20 for the number of states.) -- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, esquel@sommarskog.se |
| Dan Tilque <dtilque@frontier.com>: Feb 16 08:42PM -0800 Mark Brader wrote: >> better idea? > [3] Decide that you mean laws applicable anywhere in the independent > country, so the UK qualifies and the answer is 16. After cogitating on the question today, I've decided that this is the best answer. But as Erland pointed out, that leaves the correct answer at 17, just a different 17 than I listed. > that there is no such thing as "de facto legalization" and in particular > that state legislation that contradicts federal law in an area of federal > jurisdiction is ipso facto invalid. The last clause is above is wrong on two counts. 1. State laws do sometimes contradict federal law and, despite that, are the law in that state. A example is the minimum wage, where a state can mandate a higher minimum wage than the federal government. 2. This is not an area of just federal jurisdiction. If the states don't have laws making certain drugs illegal, then their police (including local police) cannot make arrests for possession of those drugs, no matter what the federal laws say. But I agree that I should have been more explicit, and I apologize for not doing so. > Invalid for the same reason as above. If physician-assisted suicide is > not legal, then it's some form of culpable homicide, and criminal law > in Canada falls under federal jurisdiction. I think Quebec's rationale is that they are regulating medical practice, which I understand is a provincial responsibility. The federal government was planning on challenging Quebec's law in court; it would have made for an interesting case. The next most recent polity was Vermont (May 2013), which no one gave as an answer either. So even if Quebec is wrong, the scores don't change. > No, on this question you didn't ask about laws. Court rulings should > count as long as physician-assisted suicide is available in practice > in those polities. Well I didn't explicitly put it in this question, but the instructions for the quiz as a whole say that judicially mandated rights do not count. It's a moot point anyway, since no one gave those as answers. So the scores have not changed and Erland is still winner. -- Dan Tilque |
| msb@vex.net (Mark Brader): Feb 17 04:55AM -0600 Dan Tilque: >>> those states, but still illegal according to federal law. But the Obama >>> administration has chosen not to enforce the federal laws in those >>> states[1], so those states have defacto legalization... Mark Brader: >> that there is no such thing as "de facto legalization" and in particular >> that state legislation that contradicts federal law in an area of federal >> jurisdiction is ipso facto invalid. Dan Tilque: > 1. State laws do sometimes contradict federal law and, despite that, are > the law in that state. A example is the minimum wage, where a state can > mandate a higher minimum wage than the federal government. That's not a contradiction; it's a supplementary requirement. > have laws making certain drugs illegal, then their police (including > local police) cannot make arrests for possession of those drugs, no > matter what the federal laws say. But the feds have their own police and courts and can and do arrest and prosecute people for federal crimes. It's just that in this case they've said they aren't going to -- more like an amnesty than a legalization. > But I agree that I should have been more explicit, and I apologize for > not doing so. 'Sall right. This sort of thing can be really hard to nail down in a trivia question of reasonable length. > which I understand is a provincial responsibility. The federal > government was planning on challenging Quebec's law in court; it > would have made for an interesting case. It's also notable because Canada does *not* have a parallel system of federal police and courts. There are federal police (the RCMP) but they only operate at federal-government facilities and in places that don't have provincial or local police. Federal courts exist but not at the level where criminal cases are originally tried. (At least, not in the provinces; I don't know if it's different in the territories.) So if Quebec decides that Dr. X acted legally under their provincial law, the feds could not, as far as I know, decide to arrest and prosecute him under theirs. > The next most recent polity was Vermont (May 2013), which no one gave as > an answer either. So even if Quebec is wrong, the scores don't change. Thanks. > Well I didn't explicitly put it in this question, but the instructions > for the quiz as a whole say that judicially mandated rights do not > count. It's a moot point anyway, since no one gave those as answers. Oh, good. > So the scores have not changed and Erland is still winner. Well done, then, Erland! -- Mark Brader | "...what can be asserted without evidence Toronto | can also be dismissed without evidence." msb@vex.net | --Christopher Hitchens My text in this article is in the public domain. |
| "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com>: Feb 16 12:28PM 9th November -- David |
| "Björn Lundin" <b.f.lundin@gmail.com>: Feb 16 06:22PM +0100 On 2015-02-14 20:29, Björn Lundin wrote: > Was date was the Berlin wall opened? > I will close this round Tuesday Feb 17 2015 20:00 CET As all has answered I will close this round now. On request, the table is presented order by days off. Before, it was order by entry. First answer first. Correct date was Nov 9th, 1989. While four got the date right, eight got it within eight days. Impressive. more details can be found for example at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall#.22Ich_bin_ein_Berliner.22_and_.22Mr._Gorbachev.2C_tear_down_this_wall..22> and <http://history1900s.about.com/od/coldwa1/a/berlinwall_2.htm> Q4: Contender Entered Date First Date Second Date Diff1 Diff2 Best --------------------------------------------------------------------- Russ Nov-09 09-Nov-1989 09-Nov-1990 0 365 0 Erland Sommarskog Nov-09 09-Nov-1989 09-Nov-1990 0 365 0 David B Nov-09 09-Nov-1989 09-Nov-1990 0 365 0 swp Nov-09 09-Nov-1989 09-Nov-1990 0 365 0 Calvin Nov-10 10-Nov-1988 10-Nov-1989 364 1 1 Pete Nov-15 15-Nov-1988 15-Nov-1989 359 6 6 Dan Tilque Nov-15 15-Nov-1988 15-Nov-1989 359 6 6 Mark Brader Nov-01 01-Nov-1989 01-Nov-1990 8 357 8 Dan Blum Sep-01 01-Sep-1989 01-Sep-1990 69 296 69 Peter Smyth May-29 29-May-1989 29-May-1990 164 201 164 Correct date : 09-Nov-1989 Worst guess off by: 164 Peter Smyth is eliminated. Q5: What date did Princess Diana die in a car crash in Paris, France 1997 This round is open until Thu 19th of Feb 20:00 CET or until all has entered an answer. The round is open for everyone in above table, except Peter Smyth -- -- Björn |
| tool@panix.com (Dan Blum): Feb 16 05:33PM > Q5: > What date did Princess Diana die in a car crash in Paris, France 1997 August 20 -- _______________________________________________________________________ Dan Blum tool@panix.com "I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up." |
| Dan Tilque <dtilque@frontier.com>: Feb 16 11:17AM -0800 Björn Lundin wrote: > Q5: > What date did Princess Diana die in a car crash in Paris, France 1997 June 20 -- Dan Tilque |
| swp <Stephen.W.Perry@gmail.com>: Feb 16 11:28AM -0800 On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 12:22:14 PM UTC-5, björn lundin wrote: > -- > -- > Björn august 31st swp |
| msb@vex.net (Mark Brader): Feb 16 01:48PM -0600 > Q5: > What date did Princess Diana die in a car crash in Paris, France 1997 31 Aug. -- Mark Brader "How can we believe that?" Toronto "Because this time it's true!" msb@vex.net -- Lynn & Jay: YES, PRIME MINISTER |
| Russ <askme @ sayplease.com>: Feb 16 12:46PM -0800 On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 18:22:16 +0100, Björn Lundin >entered an answer. >The round is open for everyone in above table, except Peter Smyth >-- August 31st Russ |
| Erland Sommarskog <esquel@sommarskog.se>: Feb 16 10:23PM +0100 > Q5: > What date did Princess Diana die in a car crash in Paris, France 1997 July 27th -- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, esquel@sommarskog.se |
| "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com>: Feb 17 09:40AM 1st August -- David |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.games.trivia+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment