Assuming they are correct ( its still just a theory ), as the human race continues to advance the need would be reduced and eventually eliminated, so ya, it should be 'evolved out' of the species.
What is the selection pressure? The places people live with better sanitation (reducing the need for an appendix), are the same ones where appendicitis is a treatable condition; so it's more or less a wash.
If they can't PROVE she did the crime though, then she shouldn't do the time.
This is a civil matter, not criminal. They don't have to prove she did the crime. They only have to prove that it's more likely than not that she did. It's a big difference.
If he is willing to behave unethically in the first place, why wouldn't he be able to plant the evidence as well?
If his goal was to plant evidence, why would he raise doubts about his ethics by putting the CP in an out of the way place, where the only way he could stumble upon it is by doing something unethical? Why wouldn't he plant the evidence on the desktop, in a folder labeled "kiddie porn"? Seems kind of stupid, to draw attention to yourself that way, doesn't it?
It's called "reasonable doubt", not "beyond-all-shadow-of-even-the-slightest-most-unlikely doubt". Believing that some random tech at Circuit City planted child porn on your computer, for no apparent reason, and did so in an inexplicably attention-getting way, instead of using a vastly easier and lower profile method, again for no apparent reason, is not "reasonable" by any definition of the word. That's pretty unreasonable in every way.
I would agree that the tech's actions were unethical. But, that doesn't necessarily make them illegal. In fact, the court ruled that his actions were not illegal. And, even if they were, it wouldn't matter, because he's not acting on behalf of law enforcement.
If you or someone else can come up with another remedy, great; eliminating the only remedy we currently have is not a working solution.
Neither of those cases you cited have anything to do with eliminating the exclusionary rule at all. They simply refine its scope; a scope that has been under constant refinement since the exclusionary rule was put into force on the federal level in 1914.
Don't get me wrong. I like the exclusionary rule. But, its application has never been as clear cut as Law & Order makes it out to be.
If their policy is to make sure playback of display software was working, surely they have a test suite of known good files in their posession that they test against?
Does having a poorly thought out policy make the tech's actions illegal?
Or are you saying that as a policy, it's okay to go rummaging around in directories looking for stuff because you "needed test documents"?
The appellate court ruled that what the tech did was reasonable, and that the defendant had given up some of his privacy by leaving his computer to be worked on.
Just because it's a bad policy, doesn't make it illegal. And, just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's a good policy.
Except when the war is sold to the public with a pack of lies. There are a thousand things that pose a greater threat to US citizens than Saddam Hussein did.
Nope; even lies will work. It's about belief, not reality.
That's almost a good analogy, but what happened in this case, is the mechanic opened the truck and went looking around, when all he was supposed to do was to change the headlight.
That's still not quite right. Here's the better analogy:
You bring your car(computer) to the mechanic, because you need new tires(DVD drive and accompanying software). But, you've left your stash of CP in the trunk(My Documents folder). The mechanic, instead of using his own tire iron(media files to test newly installed software) to remove the lug nuts, opens your trunk to get your's(media files already present on your hard drive), and finds the CP. Now, that's the relevant car analogy.
The relevant portion of the tech's testimony can be found in the appellate court's ruling (pages 3-4)
Guess what? No more Fourth Amendment [msn.com]. No, really. [usatoday.com]
Not that I agree with those findings. But, where in the Constitution is the Exclusionary Rule found? It's simply the remedy we favor, not a Constitutional requirement.
If they were installing a more general-purpose piece of software for playing back all sorts of media - VLC for example - they might very well have gone looking for a movie on his HDD to test.
Mr. Richert testified specifically that at Circuit City, with "every installation" of the hardware, "any supplementary software" was installed both as a courtesy "and to make sure when it leaves the store, we can guarantee that it is working."
He further testified that he did a search from the Start menu to locate an example file of each video file format,
So, in this case, we wanted to make sure that all types of files were working fine so that you wouldn't get any type of errors. When you install the different type of software, there's something called code X[codec]. It's a little piece of software inside the PC that helps the PC better understand and translate video signals through different players.
The police couldn't have gotten away with doing this because that would have amounted to an illegal search without a warrant, without probable cause, done "just because I can".
So, you're telling me that if you let the cops have access to your computer, and you "volitionally relinquish[] any expectation of privacy"**, anything the cops find couldn't be used in a case against you?
The reason why searches are restricted by the Constitution is to prevent exactly that scenario, ie: government agents randomly or otherwise busting into people's houses "just to check".
Yeah, but that's not anything like what happened in this case. This is more like letting the cops into your home, and getting pissed when they see child porn on your coffee table. They can use that evidence too.
If the evidence would be inadmissible in a criminal court if government actors collected it in that manner (ie: no warrant, no probable cause, no witnessing something happening in front of them) then evidence collected by civilians passed to the government should also be inadmissible.
Hold on there. What makes you think that, if a cop had done what the Circuit City techs had, that evidence would have been inadmissible?
The current space program could be, more accurately, described as "knowledge for knowledge's sake". Compare NASA's funding level now, to when we had a more concrete goal.
So, your argument is that the worse-off side should just lie down and take whatever crap their aggressors dictate?
If you're facing an enemy which you can never defeat, then yes. That would be the most rational thing to do.
They are simply going to continue to think of new methods to destroy the oh-so-expensive toys that the aggressors are fielding.
They can, sure. And they'll continue to find themselves the target of the military response to those actions. With remote controlled robots, there are no coffins coming back home to the US. No coffins means a drastically reduced domestic anti-war effort. Which means that we could basically "fight" forever, assuring an eventual victory.
The surest way to not have casualties is not start a war in the first place.
Of course. But, if you're going to engage in a war, you want to use every available means to reduce your casualties. These types of robots would reduce those casualties on both sides.
Technically, the Vietnam war put an end to funding of the Apollo missions.
If you want to get really technical, the Sea of Tranquility, and the rice paddies of Vietnam were two fronts of the same war. We "won" the battle for the moon (and space superiority in general), but the other one didn't turn out so hot.
Though, as far as research goes, it wasn't a total loss; we did make substantial progress in the field of defoliation.
I specifically said, "we just need a big, old-fashioned war". We haven't had one of those since the end of the Cold War, and before that, WWII. To muster those kinds of resources, you need an enemy who can motivate everyone.
But I think the question is why doesn't the government fund research outside of war?
Because it's pretty easy to get people to agree to spend the necessary money, if it might save their, or their children's, lives. And, there's really no other situation where that threat is quite as real, as during war.
Global warming might end up killing us all, but that's a diffuse and abstract concept. The guy pointing nuclear missiles at your city, or launching mortars at your kid is much more concrete.
Another part of the puzzle is the war must be against another superpower.
Of course. It has got to be a real fight to the finish. No one fights harder, or is more inventive, than when their back's against the wall. It's not like we're in any danger of Vietnam or Iraq coming over here, and kicking our ass.
Slashdot Mirror
To then claim that the Iranians are responsible for their predicament today is plain out disingenuous.
The US is responsible for what intervention we have engaged in, in Iran. But, the Iranians are responsible for how they have responded to it.
2) they are still suing for monetary compensation to clean up the ecological mess left by agent orange.
Yeah, I think that is exactly his point: Vietnam is suing. That's a much different course than the Iranians are engaging in.
Assuming they are correct ( its still just a theory ), as the human race continues to advance the need would be reduced and eventually eliminated, so ya, it should be 'evolved out' of the species.
What is the selection pressure? The places people live with better sanitation (reducing the need for an appendix), are the same ones where appendicitis is a treatable condition; so it's more or less a wash.
If they can't PROVE she did the crime though, then she shouldn't do the time.
This is a civil matter, not criminal. They don't have to prove she did the crime. They only have to prove that it's more likely than not that she did. It's a big difference.
If he is willing to behave unethically in the first place, why wouldn't he be able to plant the evidence as well?
If his goal was to plant evidence, why would he raise doubts about his ethics by putting the CP in an out of the way place, where the only way he could stumble upon it is by doing something unethical? Why wouldn't he plant the evidence on the desktop, in a folder labeled "kiddie porn"? Seems kind of stupid, to draw attention to yourself that way, doesn't it?
It's called "reasonable doubt", not "beyond-all-shadow-of-even-the-slightest-most-unlikely doubt". Believing that some random tech at Circuit City planted child porn on your computer, for no apparent reason, and did so in an inexplicably attention-getting way, instead of using a vastly easier and lower profile method, again for no apparent reason, is not "reasonable" by any definition of the word. That's pretty unreasonable in every way.
I would agree that the tech's actions were unethical. But, that doesn't necessarily make them illegal. In fact, the court ruled that his actions were not illegal. And, even if they were, it wouldn't matter, because he's not acting on behalf of law enforcement.
If you or someone else can come up with another remedy, great; eliminating the only remedy we currently have is not a working solution.
Neither of those cases you cited have anything to do with eliminating the exclusionary rule at all. They simply refine its scope; a scope that has been under constant refinement since the exclusionary rule was put into force on the federal level in 1914.
Don't get me wrong. I like the exclusionary rule. But, its application has never been as clear cut as Law & Order makes it out to be.
If their policy is to make sure playback of display software was working, surely they have a test suite of known good files in their posession that they test against?
Does having a poorly thought out policy make the tech's actions illegal?
Or are you saying that as a policy, it's okay to go rummaging around in directories looking for stuff because you "needed test documents"?
The appellate court ruled that what the tech did was reasonable, and that the defendant had given up some of his privacy by leaving his computer to be worked on.
Just because it's a bad policy, doesn't make it illegal. And, just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's a good policy.
Except when the war is sold to the public with a pack of lies. There are a thousand things that pose a greater threat to US citizens than Saddam Hussein did.
Nope; even lies will work. It's about belief, not reality.
Nah it still sucks, he put in s a DVD player [...]
And media player software. Read the ruling. What the tech does is exactly what I'd do if installing the same software on my personal computer.
That's almost a good analogy, but what happened in this case, is the mechanic opened the truck and went looking around, when all he was supposed to do was to change the headlight.
That's still not quite right. Here's the better analogy:
You bring your car(computer) to the mechanic, because you need new tires(DVD drive and accompanying software). But, you've left your stash of CP in the trunk(My Documents folder). The mechanic, instead of using his own tire iron(media files to test newly installed software) to remove the lug nuts, opens your trunk to get your's(media files already present on your hard drive), and finds the CP. Now, that's the relevant car analogy.
The relevant portion of the tech's testimony can be found in the appellate court's ruling (pages 3-4)
Guess what? No more Fourth Amendment [msn.com]. No, really. [usatoday.com]
Not that I agree with those findings. But, where in the Constitution is the Exclusionary Rule found? It's simply the remedy we favor, not a Constitutional requirement.
If they were installing a more general-purpose piece of software for playing back all sorts of media - VLC for example - they might very well have gone looking for a movie on his HDD to test.
From the appellate ruling (relevant pages: 3-4):
Mr. Richert testified specifically that at Circuit City, with "every installation" of the hardware, "any supplementary software" was installed both as a courtesy "and to make sure when it leaves the store, we can guarantee that it is working."
He further testified that he did a search from the Start menu to locate an example file of each video file format,
So, in this case, we wanted to make sure that all types of files were working fine so that you wouldn't get any type of errors. When you install the different type of software, there's something called code X[codec]. It's a little piece of software inside the PC that helps the PC better understand and translate video signals through different players.
Seems fairly reasonable to me.
The police couldn't have gotten away with doing this because that would have amounted to an illegal search without a warrant, without probable cause, done "just because I can".
So, you're telling me that if you let the cops have access to your computer, and you "volitionally relinquish[] any expectation of privacy"**, anything the cops find couldn't be used in a case against you?
The reason why searches are restricted by the Constitution is to prevent exactly that scenario, ie: government agents randomly or otherwise busting into people's houses "just to check".
Yeah, but that's not anything like what happened in this case. This is more like letting the cops into your home, and getting pissed when they see child porn on your coffee table. They can use that evidence too.
**From the appellate ruling
If the evidence would be inadmissible in a criminal court if government actors collected it in that manner (ie: no warrant, no probable cause, no witnessing something happening in front of them) then evidence collected by civilians passed to the government should also be inadmissible.
Hold on there. What makes you think that, if a cop had done what the Circuit City techs had, that evidence would have been inadmissible?
The Apollo project was knowledge for knowledge's sake [...]
I guess you never heard of the Space Race.
The current space program could be, more accurately, described as "knowledge for knowledge's sake". Compare NASA's funding level now, to when we had a more concrete goal.
So, your argument is that the worse-off side should just lie down and take whatever crap their aggressors dictate?
If you're facing an enemy which you can never defeat, then yes. That would be the most rational thing to do.
They are simply going to continue to think of new methods to destroy the oh-so-expensive toys that the aggressors are fielding.
They can, sure. And they'll continue to find themselves the target of the military response to those actions. With remote controlled robots, there are no coffins coming back home to the US. No coffins means a drastically reduced domestic anti-war effort. Which means that we could basically "fight" forever, assuring an eventual victory.
The surest way to not have casualties is not start a war in the first place.
Of course. But, if you're going to engage in a war, you want to use every available means to reduce your casualties. These types of robots would reduce those casualties on both sides.
I await the people trying to figure out which political stripe they can flame me as.
You're a (little "d") democrat:
The truth is the government exists to do whatever the people consent to them doing.
Not quite my cup of tea. But, I'll leave the flaming to someone else.
Technically, the Vietnam war put an end to funding of the Apollo missions.
If you want to get really technical, the Sea of Tranquility, and the rice paddies of Vietnam were two fronts of the same war. We "won" the battle for the moon (and space superiority in general), but the other one didn't turn out so hot.
Though, as far as research goes, it wasn't a total loss; we did make substantial progress in the field of defoliation.
Here you go.
Yeah, China would fit the bill (with or without North Korea). Now that would be a war.
War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on x+1.
I specifically said, "we just need a big, old-fashioned war". We haven't had one of those since the end of the Cold War, and before that, WWII. To muster those kinds of resources, you need an enemy who can motivate everyone.
But I think the question is why doesn't the government fund research outside of war?
Because it's pretty easy to get people to agree to spend the necessary money, if it might save their, or their children's, lives. And, there's really no other situation where that threat is quite as real, as during war.
Global warming might end up killing us all, but that's a diffuse and abstract concept. The guy pointing nuclear missiles at your city, or launching mortars at your kid is much more concrete.
Another part of the puzzle is the war must be against another superpower.
Of course. It has got to be a real fight to the finish. No one fights harder, or is more inventive, than when their back's against the wall. It's not like we're in any danger of Vietnam or Iraq coming over here, and kicking our ass.
The Manhattan Project and the Apollo Moon missions are two of the pinnacles of the 20th century scientific achievement
So, extrapolating from those two points, we just need a big, old-fashioned war. (hot or cold, as desired)