They did have ample evidence indicating his guilt. It has always fallen to the defendant to provide a defense, and counter / refute the state's (otherwise-compelling) incriminating evidence.
Apparently it wasn't enough since we know he is not guilty. In fact, the standard IS that a defendant should be able to sit silently and find himself acquitted is he didn't do it. The defendant DOES have the right to speak in his defense, of course.
This being a really ancient crime, the prosecutor really did owe a very high duty to be sure since after 50 years the those witnesses who aren't deceased probably only remember the events in caricature.
In this case, In a sane world, there would be a good case for prosecutorial misconduct. Starting with the prosecutor charging him with being a fugitive from justice planning to drop that charge at trial with the explicit purpose of making sure the bail was beyond the defendant's means. That is, he knowingly charged a defendant with a crime he knew him to be innocent of.
Of course, that is easily topped by the prosecutor's office having sufficient exculpatory evidence on hand that they should never have charged him. That evidence is what was re-examined as part of a review process (not an appeal) that has overturned his conviction.
That's not libertarian speak. I am far from that. It's mainstream economics and the term is centuries old. You clearly don't understand the issue well enough to take an opposition position on the matter. Do get educated. At least look up what rent means in this context first. You might find the term 'arbitrage' useful as well.
I'm trying to be nice about it, but you're making that difficult.
There exist failsafe designs if we would get off our butts and build them. If we extract the actinides from the waste, we can use the mix to fuel a reactor. The remaining 5% or so would need to be stored for 200-500 years. Not quite your criterion, but close compared to 10k years.
Actually, banks have no use for hard real time. What they need is bullet proof transactions and audit trails. Does it ACTUALLY matter if the ATM transaction that is allowed 11.2 seconds takes 11.3 to complete? What does matter is that the debit to the account happens without fail if and only if cash is dispensed. AND they need to be able to prove it through audit logs.
Wow, talk about apples and oranges, the article you pointed to is talking about the U.S. government not paying ransom to terrorists who kidnap someonme. That is a rather small subset of kidnappers. Had you properly constrained your statement to that small subset, it might have made sense. Alas, you didn't.
Note as well, that in those limited cases, it is common that special forces responds vigorously and lethally to rescue the hostages and crush the kidnappers. Quite a substantial effort to strongly discourage such crimes.
In contrast, these filesystem encryption people don't seem to be pursued at all. Track them down and send them a cruise missile and we'll talk. Unless or until that sort of thing happens (or they at least end up locked up), there is no moral high ground to charge the victim with a crime.
I believe if you re-examine the parallels you've drawn, you may see that you are the one who has conflated apples with oranges.
Not necessarily. I think MOST people who object to the whole trigger warning thing are actually objecting to those who treat failure to "just know" what someone's obscure triggers might be as if it was some sort of knowing crime against humanity.
It seems not one poster here considered that they see they are capable of paying more and not being harmed BUT they know they can't solve all of those problems unless their fellow millionaires who are equally capable of paying but not equally willing kick in their part.
Adam Smith warned that charters should only be granted under exceptional circumstances and then the resulting corporation should be kept on a short leash. This was exactly related to moral behavior (or the lack thereof).
But none of that need totally halt stock nor need it result in unlimited liability. For example, the major stockholders (the people big enough that the board will personally answer their phone calls) might have to indemnify the smaller investors.
But overall, it might be NECESSARY to push smaller investors out of the market so that the courts won't be afraid to drop the hammer on serial offending corporations.
And all of those not getting hired because of paying patent fees might disagree. So might everyone paying more for products to cover the patent fees.
Plus, if the patent royalties are demanded after the fact when someone easily (even accidentally) re-invents the patent, it is pure economic rent, which is generally agreed to be harmful to the economy.
I am assuming that if that condition exists, they will demand indemnification from the major shareholders, demand that the corporations make appropriate agreements with anyone it has significant debt with, demand greater control, or not invest in corporations.
That's not to say there wouldn't be problems with complete liability, but there is some justification for more liability than exists now, especially in the case of criminal acts.
No. Gawker knew damned well that it wasn't news or at all in the public interest to post it without permission. They did it hoping to give themselves a big boost. Even the Enquirer knows better than that.
There is plenty of blame to go around, but it was Gawker that took the availability from a small circle of people to the whole damned internet.
Because it would keep stockholders from acting as the worst sort of absentee owner allowing their evil sociopathic corporate child to run roughshod over everything.
I have run across a number of cases where all I could get was a CLI due to the very issue I was trying to fix.Try re-initializing the network card on a remote GUI, for example. OOPS. Sure you can use a networked KVM, but now you're buying a bunch of extra hardware to compensate for the GUI's failings. And if the problem is that the network card is babbling on the LAN, good luck cramming a GUI session through the flood.
The OS and it's admins should be able to do anything necessary to fix the server over a serial console. Not because that's the best interface, but because it's the most likely to still be working when something goes bad.
Slashdot Mirror
They did have ample evidence indicating his guilt. It has always fallen to the defendant to provide a defense, and counter / refute the state's (otherwise-compelling) incriminating evidence.
Apparently it wasn't enough since we know he is not guilty. In fact, the standard IS that a defendant should be able to sit silently and find himself acquitted is he didn't do it. The defendant DOES have the right to speak in his defense, of course.
This being a really ancient crime, the prosecutor really did owe a very high duty to be sure since after 50 years the those witnesses who aren't deceased probably only remember the events in caricature.
In this case, In a sane world, there would be a good case for prosecutorial misconduct. Starting with the prosecutor charging him with being a fugitive from justice planning to drop that charge at trial with the explicit purpose of making sure the bail was beyond the defendant's means. That is, he knowingly charged a defendant with a crime he knew him to be innocent of.
Of course, that is easily topped by the prosecutor's office having sufficient exculpatory evidence on hand that they should never have charged him. That evidence is what was re-examined as part of a review process (not an appeal) that has overturned his conviction.
That's not libertarian speak. I am far from that. It's mainstream economics and the term is centuries old. You clearly don't understand the issue well enough to take an opposition position on the matter. Do get educated. At least look up what rent means in this context first. You might find the term 'arbitrage' useful as well.
I'm trying to be nice about it, but you're making that difficult.
Not that kind of rent. Look up economic rent.
There exist failsafe designs if we would get off our butts and build them. If we extract the actinides from the waste, we can use the mix to fuel a reactor. The remaining 5% or so would need to be stored for 200-500 years. Not quite your criterion, but close compared to 10k years.
There are several. Top of the list is shooting down people looking to collect rent.
That's actually a good argument for introducing random delays in transaction systems.
Actually, banks have no use for hard real time. What they need is bullet proof transactions and audit trails. Does it ACTUALLY matter if the ATM transaction that is allowed 11.2 seconds takes 11.3 to complete? What does matter is that the debit to the account happens without fail if and only if cash is dispensed. AND they need to be able to prove it through audit logs.
It's still a pretty big deal to the people who expected to see their house and found an empty field. Perhaps you mean "It could have been worse".
Wow, talk about apples and oranges, the article you pointed to is talking about the U.S. government not paying ransom to terrorists who kidnap someonme. That is a rather small subset of kidnappers. Had you properly constrained your statement to that small subset, it might have made sense. Alas, you didn't.
Note as well, that in those limited cases, it is common that special forces responds vigorously and lethally to rescue the hostages and crush the kidnappers. Quite a substantial effort to strongly discourage such crimes.
In contrast, these filesystem encryption people don't seem to be pursued at all. Track them down and send them a cruise missile and we'll talk. Unless or until that sort of thing happens (or they at least end up locked up), there is no moral high ground to charge the victim with a crime.
I believe if you re-examine the parallels you've drawn, you may see that you are the one who has conflated apples with oranges.
So you're claiming that police failing to either prevent the crime or resolve it themselves does nothing at all to encourage more of the same?
It really is just about the same argument.
Perhaps surprisingly, rare earths are not at all rare. Good sites for profitable mining of rare earths at current prices are rare.
As for the energy cost to produce PV panels, perhaps they should consider solar power :-)
So naturally, the police will be charged as accomplices if they fail to prevent the kidnapping. Also, charge the victim (posthumously)?
How about we just charge the people who did the crime!
Or that once you pay, you're known as a likely payout.
So close and yet so far! If they had stayed away another year or two, the company might have made a dramatic recovery.
Not necessarily. I think MOST people who object to the whole trigger warning thing are actually objecting to those who treat failure to "just know" what someone's obscure triggers might be as if it was some sort of knowing crime against humanity.
It seems not one poster here considered that they see they are capable of paying more and not being harmed BUT they know they can't solve all of those problems unless their fellow millionaires who are equally capable of paying but not equally willing kick in their part.
Adam Smith warned that charters should only be granted under exceptional circumstances and then the resulting corporation should be kept on a short leash. This was exactly related to moral behavior (or the lack thereof).
But none of that need totally halt stock nor need it result in unlimited liability. For example, the major stockholders (the people big enough that the board will personally answer their phone calls) might have to indemnify the smaller investors.
But overall, it might be NECESSARY to push smaller investors out of the market so that the courts won't be afraid to drop the hammer on serial offending corporations.
And all of those not getting hired because of paying patent fees might disagree. So might everyone paying more for products to cover the patent fees.
Plus, if the patent royalties are demanded after the fact when someone easily (even accidentally) re-invents the patent, it is pure economic rent, which is generally agreed to be harmful to the economy.
It's going to be "interesting" pushing it to the side of the road with no access to steering or brake when it breaks down.
I am assuming that if that condition exists, they will demand indemnification from the major shareholders, demand that the corporations make appropriate agreements with anyone it has significant debt with, demand greater control, or not invest in corporations.
That's not to say there wouldn't be problems with complete liability, but there is some justification for more liability than exists now, especially in the case of criminal acts.
No. Gawker knew damned well that it wasn't news or at all in the public interest to post it without permission. They did it hoping to give themselves a big boost. Even the Enquirer knows better than that.
There is plenty of blame to go around, but it was Gawker that took the availability from a small circle of people to the whole damned internet.
Because it would keep stockholders from acting as the worst sort of absentee owner allowing their evil sociopathic corporate child to run roughshod over everything.
I have run across a number of cases where all I could get was a CLI due to the very issue I was trying to fix.Try re-initializing the network card on a remote GUI, for example. OOPS. Sure you can use a networked KVM, but now you're buying a bunch of extra hardware to compensate for the GUI's failings. And if the problem is that the network card is babbling on the LAN, good luck cramming a GUI session through the flood.
The OS and it's admins should be able to do anything necessary to fix the server over a serial console. Not because that's the best interface, but because it's the most likely to still be working when something goes bad.
No steering or pedals? Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!
If, as Comcast claimed, they were still doing permitting, they weren't digging anything and hadn't committed any equipment to the process at all.