Cry me a river. Oh noes! My poast does not meet your exacting standards! All my hopes and dreams have been crushed by your stunning pseudo-cultural critique! Get bent.
There was a reason I referenced Jessi Slaughter. Go watch every video you can find of her, then come to me and tell me with a straight face that she didn't deserve it. I mean come on.
Consequences will never be the same! But no really, even when Anonymous picks on some "innocent nobody" they usually do deserve it in some way. I'd rather a few emo girls and/or fat kids get their feelings hurt if that's the price for having huge shadowy organizations get pwnt.
People in China have got richer (though the gap has widened)
This is not a coincidence. Margaret Thatcher explained it more succinctly than any economist. There is a blind assumption that "wealth gaps" are indicative of an unhealthy society, completely oblivious to the real quality of life. Hong Kong has a great deal of "wealth inequality" but its quality of life is immeasurably greater than far more "equal" nations like Kyrgyzstan.
[...] and thus got more and more to lose over the decades.
Which has actually worked against political reform. As you note yourself, when people are starving the threat of death loses its sting. The corollary is that when people are comfortable, injustices that happen to others are easier to tolerate. Liberty has been traded for stability in China, as it always has been since the death of the hundred schools of thought at the burning of books and burying of scholars. Several more generations in China must live and die before the authoritarian spirit that has been at the core of its society and government for more than three thousand years might finally pass away.
Pulling down the skin beneath one of your eyes is considered a rude gesture in Japan. (Called "akanbe") It's not really equivalent to the finger, it's more like (and often accompanied by) sticking your tongue out. Rather difficult for a robot though.
That would have been funnier if you had adjusted it even slightly to the topic, such as 'Rock out with your rook out!' However I suspect for you it would 'Rock out with your pawn out!' Poor AC.
Set size can vary widely. Can you imagine how many SSNs are valid for NYC or LA? Last four digits only provide for 10k-1 blocks, so with NYC at ~6m you would need ~600 different preceding number sets. Not what I would call small.
That would be retarded, as the last four digits are repeated for each SSN region. I mean really, how do you imagine that hundreds of millions of people could be uniquely identified with just four decimal digits? It's basic math. That could not have been Google's intent. It's probably just somebody's ignorant theory.
Without even reading the article I know why. SSNs contain demographic data about where and when somebody is born. They are not serial numbers or randomly generated. Anybody with access to the first half of the SSN has demographic data.
That I provided examples at all is already magnitudes beyond the idle opinions elsewhere in this thread. Yes, sometimes the system works and self-corrects, but sometimes it doesn't. How many would I have to come up with before you'd be convinced? This is/. FFS. It's not worth the time to dig up hundreds of examples. Neither of us is going to use it productively to accomplish any kind of change.
Suddenly, the "disinterested, wishy-washy, no-opinion" doesn't sound so bad, does it?
Ever heard of the golden mean? Instead of the false dichotomy between 'expert jurors' who represent a vested interest opposed to the common good and 'ignorant jurors' who don't care about anything and so do not represent a "threat" to either counsel or the court, how about we consider only weeding out juror candidates based on an objective standard (felonies, insanity, etc.), and take the rest warts/opinions and all? That would sure as hell give me more confidence in the process.
Given that prosecution & defense counsel both get a set (generally low) number of peremptory challenges
In federal trials the defense gets ten. That's enough to eliminate effectively an entire jury at a stroke. State and lower courts vary by jurisdiction. And the 'for cause' as I have already illustrated in examples from official court documents is not limited to simple 'impartiality' unless that now includes eliminating hypotheticals that counsels don't like. It's not like those jurors were prejudging specific persons, groups, etc. They were being fed abstract scenarios, and if the counsel(s) didn't like their responses, that was 'cause'. Bullshit.
Learn2Read. I am not the original poster. It is not my obligation to do anything, and I am demonstrably the opposite of lazy for having done so. If somebody is sincerely interested in something they should search for it first. Instead, there is no sincere interest, just a lazy challenge. It's insulting really, which was the primary motivation for my intervention. If I was the original poster, I would be insulted by such a lazy challenge, born of disingenuity.
Oh, and I really care about your opinion of lmgtfy. You're just another lazy wanker who couldn't even be bothered to read the thread comprehensively.
The Constitution is a final authority and a starting point, but it is neither the whole of the law nor even, and more importantly, the whole of Constitutional Law. The Constitution and its Amendments have to be examined in light of each other, and in the light of the whole of case law. The Sixth Amendment, after all, has been greatly affected by the Fourteenth Amendment (which you don't even mention as a Constitutional aspect relating to juries, but such important SCotUS cases as Batson v. Kentucky, Taylor v. Louisiana and Miller-El v. Dretke disagree with your omission. Hell, without Duncan v. Louisiana, the Sixth Amendment wouldn't even be incorporated to apply universally outside of the federal court system). Current Constitutional case law does, in effect, constitute a right to a jury of one's peers as developed by the equal protection clause.
I do, however, concur with the rest of your sentiment. It does remain the role of expert testimony to guide lay jurors and that is a far superior arrangement to an 'expert jury'.
Your examples are bullshit. A truly random selection would almost never produce results like that, and the infinitesimally few cases where it might would not outnumber the cases of abuse that are currently happening in every jurisdiction every year. Just doing a hand wave of 'no system is perfect' is bullshit, especially when reasonable changes are articulable and implementable with little effort.
(I also think you're confusing my position with CaptSlaq's. I do not advocate 'qualified juries' of people with certain experience. I merely advocate the removal of subjective barriers to juror selection. A potential juror should not be disqualified because they would make a decision a counsel doesn't like given a set of hypotheticals. They should be disqualified only for a limited set of objective qualities like having been convicted of a felony or having been committed to a mental institution or something of similar substance. Not because they simply happen to have an opinion.)
They aren't usually intentional designs, so they don't offend anyone if you go against them.
An amusing thing to say after saying yourself 'Survivalists appear to me to fall into the "avoid these characters" category.' If you do everything reasonable to prepare yourself for a disaster, chances are all those others willing to trust an external response are going to label you a 'survivalist' and assume you're paranoid with delusions of grandeur.
[...] and she worries that the food contains too much salt.
Salty food is preferable to no food. Unless one of you has a medical condition like high blood pressure where too much salt could be a real danger, this sounds like a weak excuse to keep procrastinating.
Yeah, we can all play the time machine game and pretend it's still a big likelihood to get a whole bunch of racists on a jury. The simple fact is that right now, today, potential jurors are disqualified because they are screened as not going to tow the line of a particular counsel or even the judge. And peep this dawg, actualexamples! Holy shit!
Good to hear. The reason I mention it is that it seems like most people today have a 'somebody else will save me!' attitude and end up being very, very disappointed by the results.
Except of course that's not the goal of the jury selection process as it stands today. The counsels are not trying to get people who are the most qualified, they are trying to eliminate people who they feel are 'biased' against their position. Where 'biased' frequently means 'having any opinions at all'. And since the prosecution tries to dump anybody who might be sympathetic to the defense and the defense tries to dump anybody sympathetic to the prosecution, you're left with a pool of people who are the wishy-washiest, most indecisive, ignorant, unmotivated, etc. people available. It's a sad state of affairs.
Slashdot Mirror
Cry me a river. Oh noes! My poast does not meet your exacting standards! All my hopes and dreams have been crushed by your stunning pseudo-cultural critique! Get bent.
There was a reason I referenced Jessi Slaughter. Go watch every video you can find of her, then come to me and tell me with a straight face that she didn't deserve it. I mean come on.
Informative AC is informative.
Consequences will never be the same! But no really, even when Anonymous picks on some "innocent nobody" they usually do deserve it in some way. I'd rather a few emo girls and/or fat kids get their feelings hurt if that's the price for having huge shadowy organizations get pwnt.
People in China have got richer (though the gap has widened)
This is not a coincidence. Margaret Thatcher explained it more succinctly than any economist. There is a blind assumption that "wealth gaps" are indicative of an unhealthy society, completely oblivious to the real quality of life. Hong Kong has a great deal of "wealth inequality" but its quality of life is immeasurably greater than far more "equal" nations like Kyrgyzstan.
[...] and thus got more and more to lose over the decades.
Which has actually worked against political reform. As you note yourself, when people are starving the threat of death loses its sting. The corollary is that when people are comfortable, injustices that happen to others are easier to tolerate. Liberty has been traded for stability in China, as it always has been since the death of the hundred schools of thought at the burning of books and burying of scholars. Several more generations in China must live and die before the authoritarian spirit that has been at the core of its society and government for more than three thousand years might finally pass away.
Ding ding ding! We have the winning prediction!
Pulling down the skin beneath one of your eyes is considered a rude gesture in Japan. (Called "akanbe") It's not really equivalent to the finger, it's more like (and often accompanied by) sticking your tongue out. Rather difficult for a robot though.
The more you tighten your grip, Sony, the more PS3 systems will slip through your fingers.
That would have been funnier if you had adjusted it even slightly to the topic, such as 'Rock out with your rook out!' However I suspect for you it would 'Rock out with your pawn out!' Poor AC.
For small cities maybe, but as I have already said elsewhere, that doesn't work out so well for large cities.
Set size can vary widely. Can you imagine how many SSNs are valid for NYC or LA? Last four digits only provide for 10k-1 blocks, so with NYC at ~6m you would need ~600 different preceding number sets. Not what I would call small.
That would be retarded, as the last four digits are repeated for each SSN region. I mean really, how do you imagine that hundreds of millions of people could be uniquely identified with just four decimal digits? It's basic math. That could not have been Google's intent. It's probably just somebody's ignorant theory.
Without even reading the article I know why. SSNs contain demographic data about where and when somebody is born. They are not serial numbers or randomly generated. Anybody with access to the first half of the SSN has demographic data.
That I provided examples at all is already magnitudes beyond the idle opinions elsewhere in this thread. Yes, sometimes the system works and self-corrects, but sometimes it doesn't. How many would I have to come up with before you'd be convinced? This is /. FFS. It's not worth the time to dig up hundreds of examples. Neither of us is going to use it productively to accomplish any kind of change.
Same thing happened to Red Hat and Mandrake/Mandriva, etc. Except those actually did suck. Meh, idk, I use ubuntu-derived Mint at home.
He's pointing out that your argument seems to be in favor of a "qualified/export" jury of "peers," and that this is a dangerous road to go down.
See above.
Suddenly, the "disinterested, wishy-washy, no-opinion" doesn't sound so bad, does it?
Ever heard of the golden mean? Instead of the false dichotomy between 'expert jurors' who represent a vested interest opposed to the common good and 'ignorant jurors' who don't care about anything and so do not represent a "threat" to either counsel or the court, how about we consider only weeding out juror candidates based on an objective standard (felonies, insanity, etc.), and take the rest warts/opinions and all? That would sure as hell give me more confidence in the process.
Given that prosecution & defense counsel both get a set (generally low) number of peremptory challenges
In federal trials the defense gets ten. That's enough to eliminate effectively an entire jury at a stroke. State and lower courts vary by jurisdiction. And the 'for cause' as I have already illustrated in examples from official court documents is not limited to simple 'impartiality' unless that now includes eliminating hypotheticals that counsels don't like. It's not like those jurors were prejudging specific persons, groups, etc. They were being fed abstract scenarios, and if the counsel(s) didn't like their responses, that was 'cause'. Bullshit.
Learn2Read. I am not the original poster. It is not my obligation to do anything, and I am demonstrably the opposite of lazy for having done so. If somebody is sincerely interested in something they should search for it first. Instead, there is no sincere interest, just a lazy challenge. It's insulting really, which was the primary motivation for my intervention. If I was the original poster, I would be insulted by such a lazy challenge, born of disingenuity.
Oh, and I really care about your opinion of lmgtfy. You're just another lazy wanker who couldn't even be bothered to read the thread comprehensively.
The Constitution is a final authority and a starting point, but it is neither the whole of the law nor even, and more importantly, the whole of Constitutional Law. The Constitution and its Amendments have to be examined in light of each other, and in the light of the whole of case law. The Sixth Amendment, after all, has been greatly affected by the Fourteenth Amendment (which you don't even mention as a Constitutional aspect relating to juries, but such important SCotUS cases as Batson v. Kentucky, Taylor v. Louisiana and Miller-El v. Dretke disagree with your omission. Hell, without Duncan v. Louisiana, the Sixth Amendment wouldn't even be incorporated to apply universally outside of the federal court system). Current Constitutional case law does, in effect, constitute a right to a jury of one's peers as developed by the equal protection clause.
I do, however, concur with the rest of your sentiment. It does remain the role of expert testimony to guide lay jurors and that is a far superior arrangement to an 'expert jury'.
Your examples are bullshit. A truly random selection would almost never produce results like that, and the infinitesimally few cases where it might would not outnumber the cases of abuse that are currently happening in every jurisdiction every year. Just doing a hand wave of 'no system is perfect' is bullshit, especially when reasonable changes are articulable and implementable with little effort.
(I also think you're confusing my position with CaptSlaq's. I do not advocate 'qualified juries' of people with certain experience. I merely advocate the removal of subjective barriers to juror selection. A potential juror should not be disqualified because they would make a decision a counsel doesn't like given a set of hypotheticals. They should be disqualified only for a limited set of objective qualities like having been convicted of a felony or having been committed to a mental institution or something of similar substance. Not because they simply happen to have an opinion.)
They aren't usually intentional designs, so they don't offend anyone if you go against them.
An amusing thing to say after saying yourself 'Survivalists appear to me to fall into the "avoid these characters" category.' If you do everything reasonable to prepare yourself for a disaster, chances are all those others willing to trust an external response are going to label you a 'survivalist' and assume you're paranoid with delusions of grandeur.
[...] and she worries that the food contains too much salt.
Salty food is preferable to no food. Unless one of you has a medical condition like high blood pressure where too much salt could be a real danger, this sounds like a weak excuse to keep procrastinating.
Yeah, we can all play the time machine game and pretend it's still a big likelihood to get a whole bunch of racists on a jury. The simple fact is that right now, today, potential jurors are disqualified because they are screened as not going to tow the line of a particular counsel or even the judge. And peep this dawg, actual examples! Holy shit!
"In preparing for battle, I have always found that plans are useless but planning is indispensable."
~Dwight D. Eisenhower
Good to hear. The reason I mention it is that it seems like most people today have a 'somebody else will save me!' attitude and end up being very, very disappointed by the results.
If your emergency plan for a SHTF scenario is 'dial 911' I would respectfully submit that your plan is a bit deficient.
Except of course that's not the goal of the jury selection process as it stands today. The counsels are not trying to get people who are the most qualified, they are trying to eliminate people who they feel are 'biased' against their position. Where 'biased' frequently means 'having any opinions at all'. And since the prosecution tries to dump anybody who might be sympathetic to the defense and the defense tries to dump anybody sympathetic to the prosecution, you're left with a pool of people who are the wishy-washiest, most indecisive, ignorant, unmotivated, etc. people available. It's a sad state of affairs.