Yes. This is exactly the dilemma I faced a few weeks ago (on my second attempt at jury duty). We all have to make up our own mind about the best course of action.
Here's my plan for the future -- Use voire dire to educate the rest of the jury pool. Prosecutor asks the key question ("Will you follow the judge's instructions on the law; to judge only the facts and not the law?"), and you publicly and firmly respond: "No. With great respect for the court, I would hold it as my responsibility to judge both the facts AND THE LAW -- as stipulated by Chief Justice John Jay in the first-ever Supreme Court trial. And I would do this even knowing that the court can prohibit telling jurors about this recognized power, as held in Moylan (1969) and Dougherty (1972). With all due respect."
Something like that. You'll get immediately booted from jury duty, but at least the idea is floating around in the heads of the rest of the jury. That's the best hack I've come up with.
Even in the most charitable scenario, in a contract-job situation -- The business can learn if you really need all that time, or whether they can tighten the screws for concessions in the next contract negotiation. Broadly, this is how capitalism has always worked.
Here in NYC, the NYPD already has a licensing program for "official press". If you start asking a cop tough questions, they're liable to ask for your license. They also get priority seating in courtrooms.
"By the way, do not forget your rights if you become a jury - NULLIFICATION."
Yes -- But don't tell the court about that under questioning! It'll get you bumped from the jury faster than anything else. (Yes: Proved from personal experience.)
And at the same time don't outright lie about it -- at least one case of juror contempt over that from 1996, although overturned on appeal a few years later (web search: Laura Kriho).
Just this past summer the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that a union could be held liable under computer hacking laws (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) for doing exactly this -- using a combination of auto-dialing and member phone calls to protest an action, and thus filling up the business' voicemail and making the lines unavailable for a period of time:
Surely people aren't just going to turn over the means to get themselves charged with fraud out of the goodness of their hearts. Somehow this has to be made mandatory by the institutions or the publications that they hope to present their work (as suggested in the second linked article; and as I understand some of the top medical journals do nowadays).
"... however the president commands the military."
In the U.S. Constitution, that power has a big qualifier on it. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." [Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1] My best reading is that he's not Commander in Chief until Congress officially taps him thus with a declaration of war.
I would say: "No, it's really not." I mean, I presume these people aren't controlling foreign occupying armies and dropping missiles from drones somewhere on a daily basis.
"religion tells us how to live life as human beings, science tells us how we live as biological creatures... the two domains don't touch."
I call this the "Gould Gambit" and I disagree with it. This "don't touch me!" approach fundamentally underestimates the many real-world claims that religion can make, and the multitude of ways that religion structures peoples' thoughts, lives, communities, and schedules. It's not entirely dissimilar from students walking out of a lecture on things they don't want to think about affecting their personal goals.
I say this as a non-religious person (but with a degree in philosophy and religious concentration).
Grandparent is now (Score: 5, Interesting). I've found that when things get posted in the wee hours EST, you have to wait at least a few hours to let the overnight crazy brigade settle down a bit.
Isn't there a fundamental difference in that China pays outright for the student to go to college, whereas the U.S. provides loans which the student repays with interest for years afterward? So in the U.S. there's anti-incentive to cut people off from going to college; it's yet another way to skim off the value of the working people's lifelong labor. China pays for the student, whereas the U.S. gets paid by the student.
Complainant asks the court to require the ISP filter out content X for all customers, at its expense, for the next 20 years. (P.S.: See you in 20 years when we plan to re-file a duplicate of this request.) *
"Combine that with the massive amount of damage it does and it is just not safe for use at all really."
A new study out this week from Columbia University reports that the "massive amount of damage" caused by meth is actually totally overblown, basically a "myth", and in fact counter-productive for the purpose of treating meth addicts. Very much in the same scare-mongering tradition of claims that (a) marijuana causes instant insanity, (b) crack babies are crippled for life, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Replying to self with links:
Lawsuit in 2008 over NYPD denying press passes to online publications -- http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/nypd-is-sued-over-denial-of-press-credentials/
Recent spat over arresting journalists in OWS sweep -- http://www.observer.com/2011/11/bloomberg-spokesperson-admits-arresting-credentialed-reporters-reading-the-awl/
Yes. This is exactly the dilemma I faced a few weeks ago (on my second attempt at jury duty). We all have to make up our own mind about the best course of action.
Here's my plan for the future -- Use voire dire to educate the rest of the jury pool. Prosecutor asks the key question ("Will you follow the judge's instructions on the law; to judge only the facts and not the law?"), and you publicly and firmly respond: "No. With great respect for the court, I would hold it as my responsibility to judge both the facts AND THE LAW -- as stipulated by Chief Justice John Jay in the first-ever Supreme Court trial. And I would do this even knowing that the court can prohibit telling jurors about this recognized power, as held in Moylan (1969) and Dougherty (1972). With all due respect."
Something like that. You'll get immediately booted from jury duty, but at least the idea is floating around in the heads of the rest of the jury. That's the best hack I've come up with.
Even in the most charitable scenario, in a contract-job situation -- The business can learn if you really need all that time, or whether they can tighten the screws for concessions in the next contract negotiation. Broadly, this is how capitalism has always worked.
Here in NYC, the NYPD already has a licensing program for "official press". If you start asking a cop tough questions, they're liable to ask for your license. They also get priority seating in courtrooms.
The judge.
"By the way, do not forget your rights if you become a jury - NULLIFICATION."
Yes -- But don't tell the court about that under questioning! It'll get you bumped from the jury faster than anything else. (Yes: Proved from personal experience.)
And at the same time don't outright lie about it -- at least one case of juror contempt over that from 1996, although overturned on appeal a few years later (web search: Laura Kriho).
Just this past summer the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that a union could be held liable under computer hacking laws (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) for doing exactly this -- using a combination of auto-dialing and member phone calls to protest an action, and thus filling up the business' voicemail and making the lines unavailable for a period of time:
http://computerfraud.us/articles/can-a-labor-union-be-sued-under-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-for-spamming-an-employer%E2%80%99s-voice-and-email-systems
"...the vast majority of them haven't found a way to use their own scarcity to their advantage."
The way: Unions.
Surely people aren't just going to turn over the means to get themselves charged with fraud out of the goodness of their hearts. Somehow this has to be made mandatory by the institutions or the publications that they hope to present their work (as suggested in the second linked article; and as I understand some of the top medical journals do nowadays).
'Nuff said.
And socialism.
A great scientist; and flat-out wrong about religion.
"Just because the weapon was a hacker intrusion doesn't mean it can't kill or harm people."
FUD. When was there ever a hack that has killed people? Meanwhile, the U.S. drops illegal bombs from killer drones around the world every day.
"... however the president commands the military."
In the U.S. Constitution, that power has a big qualifier on it. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." [Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1] My best reading is that he's not Commander in Chief until Congress officially taps him thus with a declaration of war.
This is just more bullshit from a belligerent, warmongering nation. 'Nuff said.
"Sadly, that's the type of world we live in."
I would say: "No, it's really not." I mean, I presume these people aren't controlling foreign occupying armies and dropping missiles from drones somewhere on a daily basis.
"religion tells us how to live life as human beings, science tells us how we live as biological creatures... the two domains don't touch."
I call this the "Gould Gambit" and I disagree with it. This "don't touch me!" approach fundamentally underestimates the many real-world claims that religion can make, and the multitude of ways that religion structures peoples' thoughts, lives, communities, and schedules. It's not entirely dissimilar from students walking out of a lecture on things they don't want to think about affecting their personal goals.
I say this as a non-religious person (but with a degree in philosophy and religious concentration).
Grandparent is now (Score: 5, Interesting). I've found that when things get posted in the wee hours EST, you have to wait at least a few hours to let the overnight crazy brigade settle down a bit.
Good comment, thanks for that.
Great story, thank you for that.
Isn't there a fundamental difference in that China pays outright for the student to go to college, whereas the U.S. provides loans which the student repays with interest for years afterward? So in the U.S. there's anti-incentive to cut people off from going to college; it's yet another way to skim off the value of the working people's lifelong labor. China pays for the student, whereas the U.S. gets paid by the student.
Partly for spelling and grammar. No, I kid.
Complainant asks the court to require the ISP filter out content X for all customers, at its expense, for the next 20 years. (P.S.: See you in 20 years when we plan to re-file a duplicate of this request.) *
* See also U.S. Copyright duration.
"No sane business would build their future on such ground."
Fortunately, there aren't very many of those at all.
"Combine that with the massive amount of damage it does and it is just not safe for use at all really."
A new study out this week from Columbia University reports that the "massive amount of damage" caused by meth is actually totally overblown, basically a "myth", and in fact counter-productive for the purpose of treating meth addicts. Very much in the same scare-mongering tradition of claims that (a) marijuana causes instant insanity, (b) crack babies are crippled for life, etc.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/21/why-the-myth-of-the-meth-damaged-brain-may-hinder-recovery/