Slashdot Mirror

I am working off of what was being said on the news. I don't exactly have the record books in front of me. But according to the USGS, the historical record was 2.5

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/historical_state.php#maryland

But then the Maryland Geological Survey says 3.5 was the previous earthquake (not record)

http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/brochures/earthquake.html

and shows a 4.5 in the same general area as this recent quake.

My state doesn't have a county government

Also just wanted to add, what?

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html

That is also why jurors are not supposed to reach decisions on matters of law, only matters of fact.

In the United States, it is the right of the juror to decide matters of both law and fact. This is explicitly listed in the Maryland state constitution: Art. 23. In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.

If you are ever a juror in a prosecution based on unconscionable laws, it is your legal right and your ethical duty to vote to acquit.

"Both [former state police superintendent Thomas] Hutchins and [Maryland Police Superintendent Terrence] Sheridan said the activists' names were entered into the state police database as terrorists partly because the software offered limited options for classifying entries."

The classification options were "limited" because the system wasn't supposed to include the people you put into it.

The justice system should have a legal obligation to determine whether this is a case of criminal fraud or incompetence, but whichever it is, none of the people involved should ever again be eligible for a job that pays taxpayer money.

"I don't believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government," [Hutchins] said.

Thomas E. Hutchins was a member of the US Army, a member of the House of Representatives, a police academy commander, and a state police secretary.

"We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court's instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict." U.S. v. Thomas.

That's a crock.

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - Chief Justice John Jay

"It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." - John Adams

"The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

"In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction." -- Constitution of the State of Maryland

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, it was well understood that a jury meant a panel of persons empowered to render judgment on both the facts and the law. The ignorance - or straight-out power grabbing - of later judges cannot remove this right.

(I also note that despite the erroneous statement you quote, the court did find the dismissing the juror was an error and remanded the case for new trial.)

but they can certainly (and should) prevent you from sitting on the jury if they feel your impartiality will be threatened by your personal issues.

There is a large difference between "having personal issues" that make one partial to a person involved in the case, and judging the law and finding it wanting.

Names of minerals are a tricky subject, and there are a lot of fallacies- a mineral may have a chemical composition, a common use name, and belong to a general group of closely-related compounds. Because of this, the guidelines do exist. It's not unlike trying to name a species of organisms.A history of the Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names (CNMMN) demonstrates that this is not a subject touched upon lightly in the scientific world. (this comment is going to have a lot of links, because i'm interested in rocks and minerals. The info may be interesting or, as with the IMA info, useful and particularly relevant, so please bear with me.)

It becomes an issue in the everyday world more than one might expect. For example, i have anAlexandrite ring, a family heirloom. It's gorgeous, it's stunning, and it's a rock rarely seen in the jeweller's.

What's the difference between this and any other cut and polished 'ballistic missile from god'? (thank you, Mr. Watterson, for that beautiful quote.) It's pretty. So people remember it, although most people get it confused with iolite.

Amethyst is just another kind of quartz.

Rocks for which there is no scientific use frequently end up as jewellery, or even bookends, and i guess that's where a lot of the names get dropped. Rhodochrosite becomes 'that pink stone there,' and Calcite becomes (and i do not jest) "Fiberoptic stone," or sometimes "TV stone," or i've even seen it just listed as 'refractive' or 'optical' quartz. (Yeah, i've gotten kicked out of the museum of science gift shop over this one, but they let me back in when i promised to shut up.)

Personally, i think that such uses should involve the chemical composition in the labelling, sonce then people would grow up knowing the difference between nephrite and jadeite, and things labelled 'serpentine' (yes, it also talks about chromium)(see also here)and 'amazonite' would then end up consistently identified. Red ruby would be "ruby- Al2O3" and people would learn to recognise it the way they did the contents of ordinary table salt.

*sigh*

Yeah, i know nobody's going to label Paramelaconite (a tetragonal oxide of copper) for the common consumer... but isn't it a nice thought? For more on the naming of minerals, try and here, and also here, with the International Mineralogical Association.