I opened slashdot while wrapping Christmas presents and read the headline as "Nasa May Send Lawyers to Europa." My thought was, "Be sure to send them all."
You are wrong. The point of a jury is to decide if the action of the defendant was something that should be punished, even if it violates the letter of the law. If the jury does not believe that the defendant's action should be illegal, it is intended that they find the defendant "not guilty". There is a valid reason that jury nullification is not talked about, if jury nullification was brought up more there would be cases where the jury found the defendant "not guilty" because he was "such a nice guy." Jury nullification is only to be used when the jury does not believe that the action in question should be a crime. Jury nullification should not be used when the jury thinks, "Yes, he did what they said he did. And, yes, that definitely should be a crime. But this guy should not be punished because I like him." The latter is too close to, "No, he did not do what they said he did, but this guy should be punished because I don't like him."
Yes, "obsessing" is overreaction. However, there is value in there being an established baseline of what is "correct". That baseline will change over time, but if some effort is not made to maintain it, it will become difficult for people from different areas and economic classes to communicate. One of the things that facilitated the traditional economic mobility of the U.S. was the fact that our schools taught everyone to follow the same rules of speech and writing. For the most part, those who failed to learn to speak "correct" english were also those without sufficient ambition to improve their economic lot in life.
That was my thought as well. Not only that, but the tweets in the article did not seem to reflect anything about what was actually going on in the trial. I half expect that if the defendant is convicted in the second trial his lawyers will appeal based on the jury pool being compromised because of the tweets by this juror.
I do not remember the reference and do not know if it is still current theory, but I remember there being a theory that the moon acted to shield the earth from collisions with asteroids. The article I read discussed how a smaller moon (such as those circling Mars) would have been significantly less effective at doing so and would have made the Earth less habitable.
Water is extraordinary. It is one of the few substances that is less dense as a solid than as a liquid. This is a property with significance for aquatic life forms as aquatic life would have somewhat greater difficulty surviving in cold climates without that property.
Of course not, that is not how bureaucracy works. For those who have never seen it, here is a story that explains how bureaucracy works:
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job at minimum wage for a budget of $25,000.
Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions and one person to do time studies. Departmental budget $150,000.Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people, one to do the studies and one to write the reports. Additional Department budget $200,000. Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created two positions, a time keeper and a payroll officer, then hired two people. Additional Departmental budget $300,000Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, an Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary with office space, travel allowance, and yearly training seminars. Additional Departmental budget $750,000.Then Congress said, "We have had this entire department in operation for one year, and we are $1,400,000 over budget. We must cut back." So they laid off the night watchman.
Well, not when it is put that way. However, that is not quite the situation that exists at HP. One set of management bought Web OS with a business strategy in place to capitalize on it. That strategy proved to be a failure (or at least the implementation of that strategy proved to be a failure). A new management team came in, discovered that they have this asset that has a strong "fan club" among geeks but no current way for HP to make money off of it. They decided that they had two choices, stick it on a shelf somewhere or release it as open source. The first makes no money and in no way advances the company's interests. The second, also, makes no money, but does provide the company with some badly needed positive PR among a group that significantly influence opinion among their potential customers. Additionally, if the geek fans of WebOS can turn it into what they claim it has the potential to be, it will reduce the market power f several of HP's competitors.
They are not feebs, they are "useful idiots". The whole point of the OWS protests was to provide the Democratic Party with its own equivalent of the Tea Party. It didn't work. Those who came out were unlikely to vote for Obama and the Democrats next year and they were viewed somewhat unfavorably by the general populace. This meant that the early support by Democrats for OWS was becoming a negative going into next year's election. Which was the reason that the cities cracked down on the OWS protests right now, they are hoping that OWS is ancient history by the elections.
"More, and better jobs..." you don't get those by protesting. You get those by going out and creating them and/or getting the qualifications to get them. "more equal distribution of income,..." you get that by reducing the size of government. "bank reform"...be more specific, the Dodd-Frank bill was "bank reform", although that seems likely to make things worse. "a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics", again, be more specific. If you mean campaign finance reform, be aware that every "campaign finance" reform so far has resulted in even more dependence on corporate donations by politicians in order to run their campaigns. It has, also, resulted in making it harder to remove incumbents from office. Several studies show that the longer a politician holds office the more likely they are to be influenced by corporate interests.
When have I attempted to silence others? I have merely expressed the opinion that i find the OWS protesters offensive.
Since you say that the OWS protesters speak for you, what do you think they are saying?
I have seen many people from OWS calling for greater regulation of the banking industry, which is the same thing that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and numerous other politicians who were directly involved in creating the crisis (and who profited from it) called for. Additionally, the Obama Administration has agreed with those calls. Yet, most of the Obama Administration members responsible for managing current financial regulations are former Goldman-Sachs employees.
I think for myself that is why I find groups like OWS offensive, as they claim to speak for others. I,also, find them offensive because they say they are upset about the abuse of government power and then call for government to be given more power in ways that are the same as what those who have profited from the abuse of government power have been proposing.
NO, OWS represents themselves. The majority of Americans do not wish to be represented by OWS and do not agree with the OWS agenda (which seems to be: "The government has aided the wealthy in stealing from the rest, therefore we need a more powerful government." A logic which I have trouble following).
The current President was part of that "incident" and that "incident" was endorsed by the man who became the highest authority when the revolution was complete. That means that the current regime is the direct heir of those who engineered that "incident".
It's a shame to see that people are now dumping on others who are speaking up for almost everyone.
This is the mistake that most such people make, they claim to speak for people who want no part of what they are saying. The Tea Party protests did not claim to be speaking for anybody but themselves, yet the OWS, which is even less representative of the American population claims to be speaking for "almost everyone".
What do you base this statement on? Every member of the 1% I have heard speak has been supportive of the OWS, everyone I have heard speak against it is not a member of the 1% (that does not mean that no one in the 1% opposes OWS, just that those I have heard opposing it are not members of the 1%).
It is only being debated by those who were cheering the protests on. Zucotti park is private property, after the owners asked them to leave, they were trespassing. The other articles are from Rueters which fully supported the "Occupy" movement.
I am unaware of any searches done on the people at the OWS encampments, except when they were arrested for trespassing when they were told to leave. I believe that the line was crossed when they started sleeping at these locations. If they had rotated out so that at any given time the overwhelming majority were awake that would move it in to being something that could at least be argued as protected on First Amendment grounds.
I am not really interested in arguing with you about the behavior of the spoiled brat children of the 1% who make up the majority of the Occupy protesters.
As another poster pointed out the last time the US had an embassy in Iran, the current regime took its staff hostage (they claim that they were unaffiliated with the government, but considering that the current President of Iran was involved with the group that did so suggests that it was). Additionally, a similar incident just occurred with the British Embassy (although not lasting as long). The current Iranian regime has shown a distinct lack of respect for international norms when it comes to respecting the Embassies of foreign governments.
The clamp down on the OWS is not a free speech issue. The OWS protestors are welcome to show up every day and protest. They are just not allowed to camp out in public parks/someone else's property unless those places are designated for such activity/they have the permission of the owners. The clamp down occurred because the OWS "protestors" were for all intents and purposes living at those locations. The rest of your points have validity. Including about how stupid this website was in the first place.
Personally I love the quote from the website that sites Hillary Clinton (speaking as a member of the current Administration) saying that behaviors of the current Administration are a demonstration of the government failing its citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
What fantasy land do you live in that that was before lawyers?
I opened slashdot while wrapping Christmas presents and read the headline as "Nasa May Send Lawyers to Europa." My thought was, "Be sure to send them all."
You are wrong. The point of a jury is to decide if the action of the defendant was something that should be punished, even if it violates the letter of the law. If the jury does not believe that the defendant's action should be illegal, it is intended that they find the defendant "not guilty". There is a valid reason that jury nullification is not talked about, if jury nullification was brought up more there would be cases where the jury found the defendant "not guilty" because he was "such a nice guy." Jury nullification is only to be used when the jury does not believe that the action in question should be a crime. Jury nullification should not be used when the jury thinks, "Yes, he did what they said he did. And, yes, that definitely should be a crime. But this guy should not be punished because I like him." The latter is too close to, "No, he did not do what they said he did, but this guy should be punished because I don't like him."
Yes, "obsessing" is overreaction. However, there is value in there being an established baseline of what is "correct". That baseline will change over time, but if some effort is not made to maintain it, it will become difficult for people from different areas and economic classes to communicate. One of the things that facilitated the traditional economic mobility of the U.S. was the fact that our schools taught everyone to follow the same rules of speech and writing. For the most part, those who failed to learn to speak "correct" english were also those without sufficient ambition to improve their economic lot in life.
That was my thought as well. Not only that, but the tweets in the article did not seem to reflect anything about what was actually going on in the trial. I half expect that if the defendant is convicted in the second trial his lawyers will appeal based on the jury pool being compromised because of the tweets by this juror.
I do not remember the reference and do not know if it is still current theory, but I remember there being a theory that the moon acted to shield the earth from collisions with asteroids. The article I read discussed how a smaller moon (such as those circling Mars) would have been significantly less effective at doing so and would have made the Earth less habitable.
Water is extraordinary. It is one of the few substances that is less dense as a solid than as a liquid. This is a property with significance for aquatic life forms as aquatic life would have somewhat greater difficulty surviving in cold climates without that property.
Of course not, that is not how bureaucracy works. For those who have never seen it, here is a story that explains how bureaucracy works:
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job at minimum wage for a budget of $25,000. Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions and one person to do time studies. Departmental budget $150,000.Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people, one to do the studies and one to write the reports. Additional Department budget $200,000. Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created two positions, a time keeper and a payroll officer, then hired two people. Additional Departmental budget $300,000Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, an Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary with office space, travel allowance, and yearly training seminars. Additional Departmental budget $750,000.Then Congress said, "We have had this entire department in operation for one year, and we are $1,400,000 over budget. We must cut back." So they laid off the night watchman.
Well, not when it is put that way. However, that is not quite the situation that exists at HP. One set of management bought Web OS with a business strategy in place to capitalize on it. That strategy proved to be a failure (or at least the implementation of that strategy proved to be a failure). A new management team came in, discovered that they have this asset that has a strong "fan club" among geeks but no current way for HP to make money off of it. They decided that they had two choices, stick it on a shelf somewhere or release it as open source. The first makes no money and in no way advances the company's interests. The second, also, makes no money, but does provide the company with some badly needed positive PR among a group that significantly influence opinion among their potential customers. Additionally, if the geek fans of WebOS can turn it into what they claim it has the potential to be, it will reduce the market power f several of HP's competitors.
They are not feebs, they are "useful idiots". The whole point of the OWS protests was to provide the Democratic Party with its own equivalent of the Tea Party. It didn't work. Those who came out were unlikely to vote for Obama and the Democrats next year and they were viewed somewhat unfavorably by the general populace. This meant that the early support by Democrats for OWS was becoming a negative going into next year's election. Which was the reason that the cities cracked down on the OWS protests right now, they are hoping that OWS is ancient history by the elections.
Haven't the OWS protesters called for greater regulation of banks? That is a call for a more powerful government.
"More, and better jobs..." you don't get those by protesting. You get those by going out and creating them and/or getting the qualifications to get them. "more equal distribution of income,..." you get that by reducing the size of government. "bank reform"...be more specific, the Dodd-Frank bill was "bank reform", although that seems likely to make things worse. "a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics", again, be more specific. If you mean campaign finance reform, be aware that every "campaign finance" reform so far has resulted in even more dependence on corporate donations by politicians in order to run their campaigns. It has, also, resulted in making it harder to remove incumbents from office. Several studies show that the longer a politician holds office the more likely they are to be influenced by corporate interests.
When have I attempted to silence others? I have merely expressed the opinion that i find the OWS protesters offensive.
Since you say that the OWS protesters speak for you, what do you think they are saying?
I have seen many people from OWS calling for greater regulation of the banking industry, which is the same thing that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and numerous other politicians who were directly involved in creating the crisis (and who profited from it) called for. Additionally, the Obama Administration has agreed with those calls. Yet, most of the Obama Administration members responsible for managing current financial regulations are former Goldman-Sachs employees.
That has been alleged but the supporting evidence is thin, at best. Even so, the President I was talking about is the current President of Iran.
I think for myself that is why I find groups like OWS offensive, as they claim to speak for others. I,also, find them offensive because they say they are upset about the abuse of government power and then call for government to be given more power in ways that are the same as what those who have profited from the abuse of government power have been proposing.
NO, OWS represents themselves. The majority of Americans do not wish to be represented by OWS and do not agree with the OWS agenda (which seems to be: "The government has aided the wealthy in stealing from the rest, therefore we need a more powerful government." A logic which I have trouble following).
The current President was part of that "incident" and that "incident" was endorsed by the man who became the highest authority when the revolution was complete. That means that the current regime is the direct heir of those who engineered that "incident".
It's a shame to see that people are now dumping on others who are speaking up for almost everyone.
This is the mistake that most such people make, they claim to speak for people who want no part of what they are saying. The Tea Party protests did not claim to be speaking for anybody but themselves, yet the OWS, which is even less representative of the American population claims to be speaking for "almost everyone".
What do you base this statement on? Every member of the 1% I have heard speak has been supportive of the OWS, everyone I have heard speak against it is not a member of the 1% (that does not mean that no one in the 1% opposes OWS, just that those I have heard opposing it are not members of the 1%).
You mean people like Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin (to name just two of the 1% who took part in the OWS protests).
It is only being debated by those who were cheering the protests on. Zucotti park is private property, after the owners asked them to leave, they were trespassing. The other articles are from Rueters which fully supported the "Occupy" movement.
I am unaware of any searches done on the people at the OWS encampments, except when they were arrested for trespassing when they were told to leave. I believe that the line was crossed when they started sleeping at these locations. If they had rotated out so that at any given time the overwhelming majority were awake that would move it in to being something that could at least be argued as protected on First Amendment grounds.
I am not really interested in arguing with you about the behavior of the spoiled brat children of the 1% who make up the majority of the Occupy protesters.
As another poster pointed out the last time the US had an embassy in Iran, the current regime took its staff hostage (they claim that they were unaffiliated with the government, but considering that the current President of Iran was involved with the group that did so suggests that it was). Additionally, a similar incident just occurred with the British Embassy (although not lasting as long). The current Iranian regime has shown a distinct lack of respect for international norms when it comes to respecting the Embassies of foreign governments.
The clamp down on the OWS is not a free speech issue. The OWS protestors are welcome to show up every day and protest. They are just not allowed to camp out in public parks/someone else's property unless those places are designated for such activity/they have the permission of the owners. The clamp down occurred because the OWS "protestors" were for all intents and purposes living at those locations. The rest of your points have validity. Including about how stupid this website was in the first place.
Personally I love the quote from the website that sites Hillary Clinton (speaking as a member of the current Administration) saying that behaviors of the current Administration are a demonstration of the government failing its citizens.