So by pointing to the Militia Acts of 1792, you must agree that the scope of the militia is subject to definition by the Congress. Also you must agree that: (a) some people can be exempted from the militia, e.g., congressmen, stagecoach drivers, ferryboatmen; (b) mandatory twice-a-year-training by state officers can be a requirement; (c) the militia is directed by the state legislatures and subject federal control in times of war; and (d) those disobeying orders are subject to Court Martial.
Finally and mostly importantly, the revised Militia Act of 1903 specifically does establish the National Guard as the recognized militia in the United States, and it has the exact same legal standing that the earlier Militia Acts had in prior years.
"The problem is the laws. What Aaron did should have never been a felony."
Well, there's 6 different violations in the indictment. (Wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, aiding and abetting, criminal forfeiture). Change those half-dozen and more, sure, I don't disagree. But the prosecutor can go dig up some slightly more obscure ones whenever they want, and now you're just playing whack-a-mole.
The overriding Constitutional issue is the fundamental right to a jury trial which has been effectively taken away. Until you get a jury trial, the law is whatever the hell the prosecutor says it is, regardless of text or intent of the laws.
The key part missing in the current system is a check and balance on prosecutors (and who, what, and how much they charge). The original check and balance was supposed to be the jury of peers; but of course these days only 5% or less of people going to prison get a jury trial. So the first part of the solution is fairly simple: ban plea bargains, restore the fundamental right to a jury trial, and require every single charge to be confirmed by a jury of peers without exception.
Interesting. What I was thinking about today was a constitutional amendment that was somewhat simply: (a) all prison sentences must be approved by a jury, period, no exceptions (including plea bargains and the current 6-months a judge can sentence you without right to a jury), and (b) some kind of limit on jail time pre-trial. Some would say "but the system would be brought to a grinding halt", to which the response would be: "that is desired behavior [feature not a bug]; make prosecutors selectively pick the cases that are important and provable to a jury".
And it does seem like places that don't elect prosecutors/judges seem to have less arms-race pressures in this regard. Other than that I can't think of any check on prosecutors that wouldn't be captured by interested parties at some point.
"And yet everyone (i hope?) agrees that it would be ridiculous to complain that automation kills jobs or that we should eliminate automation...."
Well, my take on it is that omni-automation will produce an inhuman dystopia unless it's coupled with a proportional rise in socialism (so that we can communally benefit from the advances). My #1 choice would be to leverage automation in that way; but at the same time, the US seems committed to heading in the exact opposite direction in how we use it, so...
The problem of prosecutorial overreach (disproportionate charges) is not remotely special to the Aaron Swartz case; it happens millions of times every year across this country, in fact in every criminal case that occurs. What is it now, 95% of all criminal cases and imprisonments fail to go to a jury trial? That's because the prosecutors can pile on centuries-worth of charges without any check or restraint, and the expected value of any jury trial becomes automatically negative (i.e., plea bargain at terms dictated by the prosecutor). I think it's close to the top problem with the USA; it's directly the cause of us having the highest incarceration rate in the world, ever in history. Every time someone talks about laws as "tools" for police and prosecutors it's code-language for that fact of prosecutors can charge anyone they take a disliking to with centuries of possible charges to crush them, economically and spiritually.
Current trend: No way we'll be working 10 hour weeks, that's just a perennial geek fantasy. Power and wealth are nowadays accruing to the top 1% (IP owners). Reduced work weeks only ever came from active union organizing a century ago, and most unions have been crushed in the last few decades.
"This guy is doing what pretty much every other guy would do when it's being made available to them. Why get pissed off at another guy who is doing what you would be tempted to do? I wouldn't. The real problem was the woman and sometimes she is blamed and other times even forgiven. Ridiculous."
Uh, I'm pretty sure that's the most misogynist thing I've read at Slashdot, ever.
Here's a New Yorker article on chess prodigy Magnus Carlsen, one of the top players, who has come of age in the post-computers-beat-humans era. Interestingly, Carlsen makes the point that even though computers always beat any human nowadays, computer play is "not interesting" in relation to the human game.
"Carlsen said that for him, great chess playing is less the “scientific search for the best approaches” than “psychological warfare with some little tricks.”"
SOPA and PIPA required concerted, organized political action. Individual market decisions at the moment someone's service became substandard never changed dick. That just results in the frogs getting boiled.
Similarly: I was once asked to convert a text number string to an integer value, and just jotted down the well-known textbook case example. The problem is, the efficient algorithm just goes left-to-right multiplying by another 10 each step, and the interviewer completely refused to believe that this worked (and more efficiently than his suggestion), even after I stepped him through an example. Still to this day I'm dumbfounded by that.
"I'd much rather have a week to build a working application then 45 minutes to prove I know how to write boilerplate code and memorized a whole bunch of console formatting functions."
But: Do you think it's worthwhile to do a week of coding in exchange for the promise of an interview? To my mind: several days of work is something I'd better get compensated for. I'm happy to meet with someone in a quid-pro-quo: you give me a few hours of face time, I do an hour or two of simple coding tests or whatever (preferably on-site). That's a reasonable first-pass checking each other out. But it's just not reasonable to do a week-long coding test for an interview, to say nothing of committing to an ongoing number of them throughout a job search.
"the accusation appears to have been made at the time of arrest"
False. Both summary and TFA say that the police statement at time of arrest was that the video was being held as evidence in the matter of the original call. A day later when he visited the police station: still no charge. Only a week after that was he told that he was being charged with anything.
"if I had to deal with assholes everyday, I might just feel an urge to drag one through the mud every now and then"
Normal people do not feel that urge. Nor do they spend time constructing improved legal dodges for abuse. You are indeed, oh my most esteemed colleague and fellow-citizen, a fascist boot-licker.
It's common knowledge that police go trolling through law books looking for anything that sounds remotely charge-able against people they don't like.
FTA: Deputy Dan Eggers in a recording, speaking to the victim: "They felt like you were being a 'buttinski' by getting that camera in there and partially recording what was going on in a situation that you were not directly involved in."
That, combined with destruction of the evidence, does not remotely sound like honest belief in a HIPAA violation by an expert person knowledgeable in medical-industry practices.
Controlling computers by voice is only feasible for people who are in a building alone. It can't ever be acceptable in a classroom, cube-farm office, public transit, family home, etc., etc.
Slashdot Mirror
So by pointing to the Militia Acts of 1792, you must agree that the scope of the militia is subject to definition by the Congress. Also you must agree that: (a) some people can be exempted from the militia, e.g., congressmen, stagecoach drivers, ferryboatmen; (b) mandatory twice-a-year-training by state officers can be a requirement; (c) the militia is directed by the state legislatures and subject federal control in times of war; and (d) those disobeying orders are subject to Court Martial.
Finally and mostly importantly, the revised Militia Act of 1903 specifically does establish the National Guard as the recognized militia in the United States, and it has the exact same legal standing that the earlier Militia Acts had in prior years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
"The problem is the laws. What Aaron did should have never been a felony."
Well, there's 6 different violations in the indictment. (Wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, aiding and abetting, criminal forfeiture). Change those half-dozen and more, sure, I don't disagree. But the prosecutor can go dig up some slightly more obscure ones whenever they want, and now you're just playing whack-a-mole.
The overriding Constitutional issue is the fundamental right to a jury trial which has been effectively taken away. Until you get a jury trial, the law is whatever the hell the prosecutor says it is, regardless of text or intent of the laws.
"That results in severe crime and upheaval."
Or, some can and do read that as a selling opportunity for new prisons, drones, and policing equipment.
But seriously: Great post, I agree with all your points.
The key part missing in the current system is a check and balance on prosecutors (and who, what, and how much they charge). The original check and balance was supposed to be the jury of peers; but of course these days only 5% or less of people going to prison get a jury trial. So the first part of the solution is fairly simple: ban plea bargains, restore the fundamental right to a jury trial, and require every single charge to be confirmed by a jury of peers without exception.
1960's Braun products by Dieter Rams:
http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future
Interesting. What I was thinking about today was a constitutional amendment that was somewhat simply: (a) all prison sentences must be approved by a jury, period, no exceptions (including plea bargains and the current 6-months a judge can sentence you without right to a jury), and (b) some kind of limit on jail time pre-trial. Some would say "but the system would be brought to a grinding halt", to which the response would be: "that is desired behavior [feature not a bug]; make prosecutors selectively pick the cases that are important and provable to a jury".
And it does seem like places that don't elect prosecutors/judges seem to have less arms-race pressures in this regard. Other than that I can't think of any check on prosecutors that wouldn't be captured by interested parties at some point.
"And yet everyone (i hope?) agrees that it would be ridiculous to complain that automation kills jobs or that we should eliminate automation...."
Well, my take on it is that omni-automation will produce an inhuman dystopia unless it's coupled with a proportional rise in socialism (so that we can communally benefit from the advances). My #1 choice would be to leverage automation in that way; but at the same time, the US seems committed to heading in the exact opposite direction in how we use it, so...
The problem of prosecutorial overreach (disproportionate charges) is not remotely special to the Aaron Swartz case; it happens millions of times every year across this country, in fact in every criminal case that occurs. What is it now, 95% of all criminal cases and imprisonments fail to go to a jury trial? That's because the prosecutors can pile on centuries-worth of charges without any check or restraint, and the expected value of any jury trial becomes automatically negative (i.e., plea bargain at terms dictated by the prosecutor). I think it's close to the top problem with the USA; it's directly the cause of us having the highest incarceration rate in the world, ever in history. Every time someone talks about laws as "tools" for police and prosecutors it's code-language for that fact of prosecutors can charge anyone they take a disliking to with centuries of possible charges to crush them, economically and spiritually.
Current trend: No way we'll be working 10 hour weeks, that's just a perennial geek fantasy. Power and wealth are nowadays accruing to the top 1% (IP owners). Reduced work weeks only ever came from active union organizing a century ago, and most unions have been crushed in the last few decades.
... which is the unstated assumption (get jobs) whenever anyone bemoans the loss of manufacturing.
"This guy is doing what pretty much every other guy would do when it's being made available to them. Why get pissed off at another guy who is doing what you would be tempted to do? I wouldn't. The real problem was the woman and sometimes she is blamed and other times even forgiven. Ridiculous."
Uh, I'm pretty sure that's the most misogynist thing I've read at Slashdot, ever.
Here's a New Yorker article on chess prodigy Magnus Carlsen, one of the top players, who has come of age in the post-computers-beat-humans era. Interestingly, Carlsen makes the point that even though computers always beat any human nowadays, computer play is "not interesting" in relation to the human game.
"Carlsen said that for him, great chess playing is less the “scientific search for the best approaches” than “psychological warfare with some little tricks.”"
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/03/21/110321fa_fact_max#ixzz2I7RhfaJW
'It's very difficult to say, 'I don't have your phone,' in any other way other than, 'I don't have your phone.''"
I suppose keeping some copies of this news article by the door and handing them out might help a bit.
SOPA and PIPA required concerted, organized political action. Individual market decisions at the moment someone's service became substandard never changed dick. That just results in the frogs getting boiled.
Sentence fragment.
Similarly: I was once asked to convert a text number string to an integer value, and just jotted down the well-known textbook case example. The problem is, the efficient algorithm just goes left-to-right multiplying by another 10 each step, and the interviewer completely refused to believe that this worked (and more efficiently than his suggestion), even after I stepped him through an example. Still to this day I'm dumbfounded by that.
"I'd much rather have a week to build a working application then 45 minutes to prove I know how to write boilerplate code and memorized a whole bunch of console formatting functions."
But: Do you think it's worthwhile to do a week of coding in exchange for the promise of an interview? To my mind: several days of work is something I'd better get compensated for. I'm happy to meet with someone in a quid-pro-quo: you give me a few hours of face time, I do an hour or two of simple coding tests or whatever (preferably on-site). That's a reasonable first-pass checking each other out. But it's just not reasonable to do a week-long coding test for an interview, to say nothing of committing to an ongoing number of them throughout a job search.
Oh so much this.
"the accusation appears to have been made at the time of arrest"
False. Both summary and TFA say that the police statement at time of arrest was that the video was being held as evidence in the matter of the original call. A day later when he visited the police station: still no charge. Only a week after that was he told that he was being charged with anything.
"if I had to deal with assholes everyday, I might just feel an urge to drag one through the mud every now and then"
Normal people do not feel that urge. Nor do they spend time constructing improved legal dodges for abuse. You are indeed, oh my most esteemed colleague and fellow-citizen, a fascist boot-licker.
My conjecture would be that the market for guns is not upscale-luxury (i.e., not price insensitive). And it's less of a necessity than fuel.
As soon as this idea runs up against gun-industry profits, it dies.
"Unless of course he's a total douche, in which case that's what disorderly conduct is for..."
Disorderly conduct is not for being a total douche. Oh you fine fascist boot-licker, you.
It's common knowledge that police go trolling through law books looking for anything that sounds remotely charge-able against people they don't like.
FTA: Deputy Dan Eggers in a recording, speaking to the victim: "They felt like you were being a 'buttinski' by getting that camera in there and partially recording what was going on in a situation that you were not directly involved in."
That, combined with destruction of the evidence, does not remotely sound like honest belief in a HIPAA violation by an expert person knowledgeable in medical-industry practices.
Controlling computers by voice is only feasible for people who are in a building alone. It can't ever be acceptable in a classroom, cube-farm office, public transit, family home, etc., etc.