Slashdot Mirror

Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. “JSTOR signed off on it,” he said, “but MIT would not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit/bj8oThPDwzgxBSHQt3tyKI/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw

Evidence enough for the state charges of breaking and entering a building that he was arrested for by the state. Which the state prosecutor expected to be dropped with only an admonishment.

That is not evidence for the federal charges of wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer, which would have been tough to prove considering Swartz had legitimate access and JSTOR didn't want him prosecuted and was pushing for the prosecutor for a no jail/no fine slap on the wrist.

If it weren't for MIT surprisingly being a jerk about something that happens on their campus every day, there would have been no federal case.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit/bj8oThPDwzgxBSHQt3tyKI/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw

Could he exercise that right and receive 6 months? No? Then the 6 month offer is irrelevant.

Yes, in fact, that's part of the reason he declined - his lawyers felt that they could do better than 6 months + guilty pleas on 13 felonies for him at trial:

Elliot Peters, the San Francisco lawyer who took the case over from Weinberg last fall, could not persuade prosecutors to drop their demand that Swartz plead guilty to 13 felonies and spend six months in prison. Peters was preparing to go to trial and was confident of prevailing.

(Source)

He was offered a deal. He declined it, on the advice of his lawyer, who felt he could get Mr. Swartz a better outcome at trial. So... why, exactly, do you keep parroting the inane "35 years" crap? The only info I've seen about what was *actually* asked for by prosecutors was that they said they'd "ask for" 7 years if he insisted on going to trial - at WORST, 20% of the figure you keep spouting off with. The "right to a trial" doesn't guarantee you "the right to a specific outcome that you want" - you pays your money and you takes your chances, knowing that you COULD get far less than 6 months + 13 felony guilty pleas, or that you COULD get 6.5 years more time plus 13 felony convictions.

You're trying to make it sound like he wasn't receiving legal counsel, and was wholly at the mercy of a prosecutor intent on his destruction. In fact, he had excellent legal counsel, who advised him not to accept a plea deal, because they felt they had a strong case for a lower sentence, or even a not-guilty verdict resulting from a trial by jury.

I think it's important to note that Schilling has always come out (publicly at least) against public money. He's a classic anti-big-government, pro-free market guy.

"Schilling spent no small amount of time in his career preaching the Republican mantra of smaller government and personal responsibility. He did this fresh off the historic Red Sox World Series win when he backed George W. Bush in the 2004 campaign. He did it on the stump on behalf of John McCain in 2008.

He did it for Scott Brown in January 2010, when he wrote in his blog, "He's for smaller government," and lauding Brown's opposition to "creating a new government insurance program."

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/05/18/late-inning-curve-ball/ANKpzy1g9rtaDboIciP56K/story.html

It's too bad the parent is AC and hasn't been modded up. I was going to post basically the same thing. Schilling has come out publicly against "big government" and against public money being spent on private companies.

Yet when Rhode Island comes along and offers him some money to move there, what does he do? Try and start a bidding war with Massachusetts to see who will give his company more money to move/stay.

The hypocrisy in Schilling's "small government" rhetoric while, at the same time, taking a $73 million loan from Rhode Island is just mind boggling.

Possible Citation: $23 million held back.

Old Media saves the day.
http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/11/20/boston-riddled-with-mostly-small-natural-gas-leaks-boston-university-study-finds/m1LvyBqHhdVhCQEZM60mwJ/igraphic.html

Some people believe in Fairing, Gnomes, Santa Clause, Boogieman.

Most Harley hogs have fairings. Gnomes are those little concrete casted statues. Boogiemen? The boogie man is a racist slur from the '50s, and in fact a boogie woogie musician is the boogieman. From the more modern useage of the term, there are indeed boogiemen.

As to Santa Claus, when my youngest was about four, she asked me if Santa was real. I said "Of course -- I'm Santa Claus." She skeptically said "No you're not." I said "yes I am -- I'm your Santa Clause." Every parent is Santa.

Anyways, it seems that your voter rant should include the democrats who in Virginia, just had the son of a democrat resign from the campaign because he was caught telling others how to stuff the ballot by voter fraud. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-va-undercover-video-20121024,0,2265110.story

So remember, republican and those with enough sense to know better, vote on Tuesday the 6th. All others vote on Wednesday the 7th. check to make sure you have the right day.

Don't lie to yourself - Republicans commit voter fraud, too.

Since their endowment recently slipped to $30.7 billion.

Or is it possible that they are simply not interested in subscribing to everything?

The goverment will profit because the elected leaders will be able to send texts and robot calls. What India needs isn't phone or internet or anything it doesn't have physically. What it needs is more honest from the top and down. Hell, we could use that too. look at this program to give voter registration forms to people receiving "help form the goverment" The problem with goverment is that it does what is in the individuals working and in power of the goverment perceived best interest.

Indeed. Not clear cut at all when so many of the loans made by the federally owned Export-Import Bank are made to the company that its nickname is the "Bank of Boeing".

Kids? Sorry. 17 is not a "Kid". In almost every century of human's existence this was considered an adult. You think the "Virgin Mary" was 23? She was most likely 14/15.

Not to mention the double standards of arbitrary age that is defined at 18. I wish I could find the exact quote but it essentially goes like this: "The age of consent in most states is under the age of majority as defined by the feds. If you were were to have sex with a 16 year old it would be legal in numerous states. If her friend was there she couldn't watch, but could join in. Nothing could be video taped as it would be 'making child pornography'. However if any of the 16 year olds involved were to murder or rape any other person in the threesome they would be tried as an adult."

Lets just make anything under 30 child pornography. Move the drinking age and smoking age to 45, since that will fix everything. Americans parents can keep sticking their heads in the ground about everything and that'll solve everything. Vs say the Dutch who accept the fact that teens are going to act like teens and consequently have a lower pregnancy rate.

In addition to the phone number that other people have posted, there's a website (no hold time) that you can check to see if you've been exposed. You'll need to supply your home phone number and zip code:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/cclookup

and yes, I'm on the list....