Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer Demands Jury Stops Googling
coomaria noted an unsurprising story about how courts are having problems with jurors Googling during cases. As anyone who has ever been called for jury duty knows, you aren't allowed to get outside information about the case you are hearing, but apparently the iPhone makes it far too easy to ignore this advice. A lawyer is trying to get jurors to sign a form explicitly stating they won't "use 'personal electronic and media devices' to research or communicate about the case." Of course, I'm not exactly sure why a juror should need to sign something for your iPhone but not a newspaper.
Yes there is, but he can't spell.
Damn SMS and IM is killing all languages all over the planet. And don't tell me that "languages evolve", this is de-evolution. Just because words sound the same when spoken aloud doesn't mean they describe the same thing. Example: too != to != two, etc.
I speak AAVE, you insensitive clod!
Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
"aren't aloud" is obviously some legal term for not being allowed to speak aloud in court to get outside information. As in "The jury aren't aloud."
It's obvious to anyone willing to take guesses at legal terminology.
I'm pretty sure "res ipsa" is a refreshing fruit-flavored beverage served in the judge's chambers.
I'll not mention what the judge's "chambers" means, since this is a family-friendly discussion.
Putting moderation advice in your
Yes there is, but he can't spell.
Damn SMS and IM is killing all languages all over the planet. And don't tell me that "languages evolve", this is de-evolution. Just because words sound the same when spoken aloud doesn't mean they describe the same thing. Example: too != to != two, etc.
No such thing as de-evolution. If language is moving in a direction determined by natural selection promoting good features and demoting bad features, it is forward evolution. Evolution cannot move backward just as time cannot move backward. On top of that, poor spelling and poor grammar has been around since, well, the invention of spelling and grammar. The bottom line is that just because you don't like the changes that are happening, doesn't make them bad. If you think proper spelling is important (I am not saying that it isn't) then you should make a case, not a complaint.
When you're used to doing shortcuts with your most used tools, you start doing it everywhere.
Ye Gods, never mind the spelling, the entire passage is a travesty. Three sentences. The first sentence sets off without bothering with the formality of a capital letter. The second sentence is an unstructured marathon stream of information, randomly sprinkled with commas. And the third sentence switches from third person to second half way through for no apparent reason.
Heh. They're already fixed. They also fixed the quote nesting, which was strangely using single quotes on the outside and double quotes on the inside (instead of the other way around, as is conventionally done).
Now my pedantry has to gravitate to the lesser complaints I had, such as "ignore this advice" in referring to what is definitely a rule, not advice. I'm not sure why "a juror" would have to sign something for my iPhone, either (I don't even have one!).
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I forgave the first sentence, since it began with a handle which is, presumably, "correct" in lowercase. If you began a sentence with the name "e.e. cummings", I'd similarly forgive you for not using a capital letter.
The last sentence is unforgivably atrocious, I agree. However, I think your counting skills need to be re-honed.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I have a huge problem with secret evidence that is used to convict (or acquit). The reason is that there is no chance to point out flaws in the argumentation/facts. While I have no issue with you believing whatever misunderstood facts or falsehoods you pull off the internet in your individual life, I would want the opportunity to correct the record if you're using that to try me.
And that's even leaving aside concepts such as disregarding evidence due to police misconduct.
And then the Greeks added professional advocates (choosen for oratorical skill). And the Romans added professional lawyers. Why? Because the law is more complex than any codification of it. If I shoot someone, is it a crime? Well, it depends on a lot of factors, some obvious: was the gun legally purchased; did I have the right to carry it; was I in fear of my life? But even those answers aren't complete. Suppose I had no fear of my life (for the purposes of this conversation, assume that's a requirement for self-defense in my state.) You would say that my shooting was unlawful. But, new twist, he was hiding behind a target in a target range. Wait, additional twist, I knew he was there. Oh, yet another twist, it was part of a magic act and he knew I was going to shoot at him, but there was an equipment failure that made it unsafe.
If you can write a law that handles all those possibilities and all other imagined ones, you'd make an excellent programmer and an even better legislator.
I think that's where you made your first mistake. I don't know why the actions have to affect another (except that you're a libertarian). I don't know why they would have to be memorized by anyone, let alone everyone. Or why they would even have to be exhaustive.
The purpose of law is to provide a non-violent way of resolving disputes between parites. Period.
We try to make the laws "better" by making actions have predictable consequences, because predictable consequences are a good thing. We even try to make the law create more precitable consequences then the absence of law has, i.e. we not only try to make the effects of the law upon us predictable, but we also try to use the law to counterbalance randomess in our society, such as defaulting on an agreement.
We even try to make the law align with our moral code, so that we are not penalized for doing moral actions or forced to do immoral actions.
But those benefits follow once we accept a need for law.
Your ad here. Ask me how!