No doubt. I suspect that the Pentagon wants more control over the makeup of JASON (named after the first letters of the months of the annual contract term - July to November) with it's own appointees and is using the lack of relevant research in recent years as an excuse to seek this kind of control.
Personally, I think some pure research is always a healthy thing, even if the results are not immediately applicable.
Apparently, JASON wants to appoint it's own choices to it's organization, and others want political appointees (all of which, to date, JASON says, were not up to snuff technically). So JASON lost it's funding. That may explain DARPA distancing itself.
Halle Berry is either the world's best actress for that Oscar acceptance speech performance, or the world's slimiest person, for the same reason. Somehow I think she falls short on the first count.
She starts out all blubbery, in a "Me? Really?!" sort of way and ends up thanking her lawyer with an almost "Black Power Rulz!" attitude. Sorry, baby, you can't play the race card both ways. About the only redeeming part of her speech was recognition of some greater (and lesser) actresses that have come before her, who, perhaps, were cheated of recognition because of their race.
Generally, "door-opening" by victims of systemic social discrimination has happened because individuals overcame the obstacles they faced, and were so much better than any contemporary competitors, that to deny their achievements would be clear evidence of that very discrimination, otherwise subtle, hidden, and plausibly deniable. It isn't fair to have to work harder to be just as good, certainly, but if you manage it, there can be no doubt as to your achievement. Said undeniable achievement, then, serves to destroy any bogus arguments of inability, or inadquacy. That's "door opening".
By comparison, Berry's win suggests, if anything, that there is no racial discrimination anymore, or worse, that there is grudging "accomodation" given to produce an equity of outcome in spite of an inequity of ability that is "unfair". "See, racism is dead... Berry won an Oscar." Sadly, Berry's win shows only that racism is an embarrasment, not openly admitted, but hardly dead.
Like I said, our cat is afraid of the outdoors, generally the noise of cars, lawnmowers, etc. He certainly wouldn't want to roam unattended, and doesn't even like to be outside with us. Maybe we just have a wimpy cat.
We used to live in a part of town with many cats, and finding someone else's cat's excrement in one's back yard was a problem. I was glad our own cat didn't annoy our neighbors this way. It has not proven difficult to keep a litter box fairly clean, and unsmelly (of course, the cat has his own bathroom, with the litter box, so it isn't in an undesirably visible part of the house).
Then, there was the problem of theft. There was a fairly strong black market for long-haired Persian cats where we lived, and cat-napping was not unheard of. Since a kitten cost around $200, this was somewhat understandable.
As far as a hunting instinct he'd have much fun chasing and catching the flies and moths that would occasionally get in the house. Though, he has not seamed interested in this for the past few years (he's 10). According to the vet, he is healthy, and not obese, or lacking any nutritional supplements. He eats dried cat food, with an occasional treat of "Pounce!" treats. His digestive system is rather finicky (unlike his appetite), and is particularly sensitive to chicken -- bathing a Persian cat suffering from the runs is NOT fun (excessive bathing isn't good for the fur either).
About the most traumatic thing he goes through is the semi-annual shaving: A Persian can't groom itself sufficiently well and needs regular brushing, and periodic shaving.
My current job has everyone in an office. There are some offices with two or three people, but most software engineers have an office to themselves. I'm lucky in that mine has a window, to boot.
The trouble with cubes is the complete inability to tune-in/tune-out to the general area chatter. Sometimes you want to hear if a technical debate is starting up among your co-developers so you can decide if you want to contribute your two cents worth. Sometimes you want to concentrate on a particularly tricky design and want complete quiet. An office provides the opportunity to close the door.
Generally, most of us leave our office doors open. If I need to make a short personal phone call, I'll close mine. Working in a cube farm requires finding a small "meeting room" from which to make the phone call. I suppose this cuts down on excessive personal calls, but I doubt most people abuse their phone privileges. The really nice thing, is that when you want to have what is likely to become a lively debate, you don't have to get together and find an available "meeting room" -- you pick the office of someone hosting the debate, and close the door.
Now, you'd think this contradicts the desire to be able to "tune in" to the pulse of the work group. But, I've found that such conversations tend to start through open doorways or in the hall, and migrate to an office if necessary.
In a previous life, I hacked Z-80 code for an X.25 company. They made PADs (Packet Assemblers/Disassembers), and switches (more correctly a router, but the term wasn't popular then).
Anyway, they had made a little 4+1 PAD (4 async ports, 1 X.25 port) in a small PacTek box. Marketting had half-seriously considering calling it the "mini-pad".
Thankfully (a) they didn't, (b) I got a better job shortly thereafter.
I don't deny that retaliatory force, when it fails, will certainly be spun into a terrorist act by the media... except if the battle is won and not lost.
You either need large numbers of people willing to suffer arrest and incarcertation for their civil disobedience, to draw attention (by their numbers) to how bankrupt the laws have become, or small groups winning "the war." I am not convinced that either approach alone is enough: hence the MLK/Malcom X. reference. I am convinced that using retaliatory force against enforcement of unconstitutional laws is legitimate, though obviously the decision to do that is a very personal one, and not undertaken lightly.
For my part, I (a) do not violate traditional copyright, (b) do use DeCSS and derivative code to watch the occasional DVD I've bought under GNU/Linux, (c) voice the opinion that forceful retaliation against constitutional laws is just even though I would not likely take that approach muself.
Thanks for the New Scientist link, but I have noted no stress on the part of the cat. Perhaps having been neutered had something to do with it. We have let him wander a large fenced-in year, but he appears frightened by outdoor noises and prefers to stay inside.
While I don't doubt your success with cats living a full life and being free to wander, I've found that this is rarely the case in urban/suburban areas.
You points are noted, and we've let the cat wander the fenced-in yard, but he appears frightened by the outside noises. Perhaps the fact that he was neutered and generally spent his entire life inside might have something to do with it.
Civil Disobedience is just one half of the picture.
I can't help but think of the difference between Martin Luther King and Malcom X: one an advocate of civil disobedience and peaceful protest (now an act of terrorism in some places, like Utah), and the other far more radical (the thought of 50 black men armed with automatic weapons providing protection for a peaceful assembly in a bigoted white town boggles the mind - the whole purpose of the Second Amendment, IMHO).
Imagine the police being ordered to arrest someone for the "terrorist act" of using DeCSS... to view DVDs he's payed for... on his computer... under Linux. Imagine the accused fighing back. Think automatic weapon's fire, with kevlar-peircing hollow-point rounds: a dozen cops dead in the first skirmish. As they retreat to regroup, the N2 UV lasers are deployed on the roof, powered by a couple of twin-Diesels in the garage: instant sunburn, while 20 KV fry the remaining cops one by one. A bunch of wireless MAN feeds as well as DSL and cable modem offer live, uncut video of the whole scene.
It's likely that someone mounting such a defence will eventually die in the process (proudly, on their feet). Maybe the message will get out: "I killed the 200 cops who wanted to arrest me for watching a movie I paid for." Maybe other cops would think twice when asked to enforce that kind of ludicruous law. But, if nothing is done, things will get worse.
Some of us object by wringing our hands, some by writing letters, some by peaceful (and perhaps not so peaceful) demonstrations, and some with violent retaliatory force. One can't ask anyone to endanger themselves in a manner they're not comfortable with in fighting this war, and I'm certainly not advocating enacting out the scenario above, but it is a war, and it will be fought -- human nature makes me certain of that.
Also, I've been told that keeping a cat indoors greatly extends it's life expectancy. A cat free to roam lives about two years, I'm told. I have had a (neutered) Persian cat for about 10 years now, and he is happy to remain inside.
I can vouch for this. I have a Kirby G6. The little attachment can be used to suck as well as blow. It's designed to be used (when blowing) to inflate, er, well, inflatables (kiddy pools, inflatable kids' furniture, "plastic pals who are fun to be with"®), etc..
® A registered trademark of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.;->
It isn't necessary to have a degree, but it doesn't hurt. Though, if I had gotten a Ph.D right after my Masters' degree I'd have been overqualified for most jobs available at the time. Today, I regret not having it.
What about if you tap someone on the shoulder and scare them to death?
This is a very good question. Of course, IANAL (and I'd wish that more L's would offer hypothetical opinions here, not to be construed as legal advice), so don't construe this as legal advice... that said, my understanding is as follows.
There is a principle that you have to accept people as they come. This means that, if you sneak up behind someone, shout "Boo!" and they drop dead of a heart attack, you are responsible for their death. You may or may not be criminally negligent or liable as well.
If the victim was participating in an activity, where sneaking up on people and shouting "Boo!" was expected, you are genererally in the clear, even if they had a weak heart. The organizers of such an activity do have a responsiblility to explain the potential risks though, lest they be found negligent.
But, if unexpectedly, and for no other reason than to frighten, you cause someone to die this way, you are in a heap of trouble. The reasoning is that you had no justification, other than your amusement, for the action, and so must bear the consequences for the results.
In the case of tapping someone on the shoulder to see if they're alive there's good reason for the action: you're looking for survivers of some tragedy (for example). If anything, you are trying to be helpful, and while this sometimes results in unfortunate accidents, helping others is an activity that is generally encouraged. Many jurisdictions have "good samaritan" laws for this reason: if you injure someone in a good-faith effort to help them, you can't be found legally liable (though, I'd limit that to criminal charges only because you are still responsible: "Judge: you paralized them while saving their life -- they're entitled to $1,000,000 compensation if they're willing to die for it (as they otherwise would)").
In this case, ORBZ was performing a social service, albeit taking the "law" into its own hands in policing servers. So the situation is unclear. Their "victims" certainly weren't in dire need of this "assistance". However, was what they were doing reasonable? They were simply sending standards-complient mail to servers that clearly were set up to accept it. An analogy would be sending a letter to someone to see if they send nasty, annoying mail back. Is it your fault if they go into fits of apoplexy instead because they have an epileptic seizure due to the particular shade of blue of the envelope of your letter? When they provide the mailbox?
The clincher, though, is that the mail server software was probably licensed without warranty from Lotus. So, here you have an organization taking on the risk of potentially buggy software and then trying to foist that responsibility on people who accept their invitation (I'd consider an MX publication an invitation) to use it.
I think that prosecution was dropped in this case, not because the city had a change of heart, but because legal council adviced them that they had a weak case. That would explain the flip-flopping tone of their press-release: "we don't have a case against you but you caused us grief because we used buggy code".
Notice, however, that almost everything you've discussed here is system rather than personal...
Only in the sense that it is a systemic attempt to curtail corrupt people. If people weren't corrupt or corruptable, there would be no need for such systemic safeguards. Furthermore, no system can safeguard anything if there aren't individuals who hold the principles the system is designed to protect dear enough to risk their lives for them.
While I understand the motivtion behind such a license, I am troubled that it bears the name of a business. Even the FSF does not call the GPL the "FSF GPL", just the GPL.
Perhaps, GNSPL, or "General Networked Service Public License" would be better.
Honest mistakes need to be corrected, espescially in judicial matters. Those that make them need to redress their wrongs, and this is, indeed punishing, as it implies imposition of a hardship.
Even with the explicit limitations you mention, it wasn't enough. As far as I'm concerned, the only legitimate roles for government are (a) settling disputes when voluntary arbitration has failed, (b) act as a lawful agent of retaliatiary force against initiated force, or fraud. Libertarians (among whom I include myself), and objectivists would add (c) national defense, but that suggests a need for a standing army, which can all too easily be turned on one's own citizenry.
The U.S. Constitution was good, but not good enough. For one thing, those in the service of the public at large, should be held to higher ethical standards than usual, precisely because they affect the lives of so many. Abuse of that public trust, should be met with the harshest penalty. AFAIK, there is no notion of "high" treason within the U.S. legal framework that would allow for this.
The U.S. Constitution did not limit power enough -- it merely distributed it among the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. There was still incentive to try to control all three.
The impediments put in place by the Constitution delayed the process, but still resulted in a powerful, albeit somewhat distributed government, that was ripe for corruption. I don't think that good government is enough to avoid such inevitabilities.
Perhaps even greater distribution of powers would, as you write, make government service unappealing to the corruptable, but this can lead to unacceptable latency when responding to a sudden threat (though I don't particularly buy that argument: if the threat is real, I'd expect rapid agreement of the state of emergency, and execution of strategic responses planned in advance). However, such decentralization would require a far more responsible and participatory electorate. I fear that the American public has been dumbed down too much for too long for that to happen.
I am sorry that you are offended, but I used the word jihad precisely because of its negative misconnotations, and applied them to a deserving target (an oft-abusive government) that frequently uses the same interpretation in it's use of the word.
"Crusade" would be far too noble a word to describe the struggles of an often-abusive government.
A good government will prevent corruption, for instance, by being so self-limiting that it's of little value to those few who would corrupt it (this is where a court with a strict interpretation of the Constitution would come in handy in the US).
Obviously not. Witness the modern-day U.S.A., with it's anti-"terrorist" jihad. The government, as mandated by the constition, had decent safeguards to limit concentration of power to deter corruption. It just took some 200+ years for all the powers that were to collude.
As for the Ford Pinto: this was an example of negligence, not necessarily evil. I stand by my assertion that "systems", not being conscious beings can't be evil, only people can.
Questioning the typographical conventions of the court,...
Yes, that was silly.
...making unreasonable demands,...
Also silly.
...and threatening the judge...
Stop. Threatening? Suggesting that a judge be liable for his actions is somehow a threat? I never understood this line of reasoning. So, if I say, "If you try to kill me, I will defend myself?" threatens you? (taking the reasoning to the extreme).
It's sad when justified cynicism is not recognized for being lost in the noise of arrogant folly. The feeling I get is that the defendant has lost all faith in the justice system and is mocking it.
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt. I suspect that the Pentagon wants more control over the makeup of JASON (named after the first letters of the months of the annual contract term - July to November) with it's own appointees and is using the lack of relevant research in recent years as an excuse to seek this kind of control.
Personally, I think some pure research is always a healthy thing, even if the results are not immediately applicable.
Apparently, JASON wants to appoint it's own choices to it's organization, and others want political appointees (all of which, to date, JASON says, were not up to snuff technically). So JASON lost it's funding. That may explain DARPA distancing itself.
She starts out all blubbery, in a "Me? Really?!" sort of way and ends up thanking her lawyer with an almost "Black Power Rulz!" attitude. Sorry, baby, you can't play the race card both ways. About the only redeeming part of her speech was recognition of some greater (and lesser) actresses that have come before her, who, perhaps, were cheated of recognition because of their race.
Generally, "door-opening" by victims of systemic social discrimination has happened because individuals overcame the obstacles they faced, and were so much better than any contemporary competitors, that to deny their achievements would be clear evidence of that very discrimination, otherwise subtle, hidden, and plausibly deniable. It isn't fair to have to work harder to be just as good, certainly, but if you manage it, there can be no doubt as to your achievement. Said undeniable achievement, then, serves to destroy any bogus arguments of inability, or inadquacy. That's "door opening".
By comparison, Berry's win suggests, if anything, that there is no racial discrimination anymore, or worse, that there is grudging "accomodation" given to produce an equity of outcome in spite of an inequity of ability that is "unfair". "See, racism is dead... Berry won an Oscar." Sadly, Berry's win shows only that racism is an embarrasment, not openly admitted, but hardly dead.
We used to live in a part of town with many cats, and finding someone else's cat's excrement in one's back yard was a problem. I was glad our own cat didn't annoy our neighbors this way. It has not proven difficult to keep a litter box fairly clean, and unsmelly (of course, the cat has his own bathroom, with the litter box, so it isn't in an undesirably visible part of the house).
Then, there was the problem of theft. There was a fairly strong black market for long-haired Persian cats where we lived, and cat-napping was not unheard of. Since a kitten cost around $200, this was somewhat understandable.
As far as a hunting instinct he'd have much fun chasing and catching the flies and moths that would occasionally get in the house. Though, he has not seamed interested in this for the past few years (he's 10). According to the vet, he is healthy, and not obese, or lacking any nutritional supplements. He eats dried cat food, with an occasional treat of "Pounce!" treats. His digestive system is rather finicky (unlike his appetite), and is particularly sensitive to chicken -- bathing a Persian cat suffering from the runs is NOT fun (excessive bathing isn't good for the fur either).
About the most traumatic thing he goes through is the semi-annual shaving: A Persian can't groom itself sufficiently well and needs regular brushing, and periodic shaving.
The trouble with cubes is the complete inability to tune-in/tune-out to the general area chatter. Sometimes you want to hear if a technical debate is starting up among your co-developers so you can decide if you want to contribute your two cents worth. Sometimes you want to concentrate on a particularly tricky design and want complete quiet. An office provides the opportunity to close the door.
Generally, most of us leave our office doors open. If I need to make a short personal phone call, I'll close mine. Working in a cube farm requires finding a small "meeting room" from which to make the phone call. I suppose this cuts down on excessive personal calls, but I doubt most people abuse their phone privileges. The really nice thing, is that when you want to have what is likely to become a lively debate, you don't have to get together and find an available "meeting room" -- you pick the office of someone hosting the debate, and close the door.
Now, you'd think this contradicts the desire to be able to "tune in" to the pulse of the work group. But, I've found that such conversations tend to start through open doorways or in the hall, and migrate to an office if necessary.
Anyway, they had made a little 4+1 PAD (4 async ports, 1 X.25 port) in a small PacTek box. Marketting had half-seriously considering calling it the "mini-pad".
Thankfully (a) they didn't, (b) I got a better job shortly thereafter.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer.
Kill ten men, and you are crazy.
Kill a thousand men, and you are a hero."
I don't deny that retaliatory force, when it fails, will certainly be spun into a terrorist act by the media... except if the battle is won and not lost.
You either need large numbers of people willing to suffer arrest and incarcertation for their civil disobedience, to draw attention (by their numbers) to how bankrupt the laws have become, or small groups winning "the war." I am not convinced that either approach alone is enough: hence the MLK/Malcom X. reference. I am convinced that using retaliatory force against enforcement of unconstitutional laws is legitimate, though obviously the decision to do that is a very personal one, and not undertaken lightly.
For my part, I (a) do not violate traditional copyright, (b) do use DeCSS and derivative code to watch the occasional DVD I've bought under GNU/Linux, (c) voice the opinion that forceful retaliation against constitutional laws is just even though I would not likely take that approach muself.
While I don't doubt your success with cats living a full life and being free to wander, I've found that this is rarely the case in urban/suburban areas.
You points are noted, and we've let the cat wander the fenced-in yard, but he appears frightened by the outside noises. Perhaps the fact that he was neutered and generally spent his entire life inside might have something to do with it.
I can't help but think of the difference between Martin Luther King and Malcom X: one an advocate of civil disobedience and peaceful protest (now an act of terrorism in some places, like Utah), and the other far more radical (the thought of 50 black men armed with automatic weapons providing protection for a peaceful assembly in a bigoted white town boggles the mind - the whole purpose of the Second Amendment, IMHO).
Imagine the police being ordered to arrest someone for the "terrorist act" of using DeCSS... to view DVDs he's payed for... on his computer... under Linux. Imagine the accused fighing back. Think automatic weapon's fire, with kevlar-peircing hollow-point rounds: a dozen cops dead in the first skirmish. As they retreat to regroup, the N2 UV lasers are deployed on the roof, powered by a couple of twin-Diesels in the garage: instant sunburn, while 20 KV fry the remaining cops one by one. A bunch of wireless MAN feeds as well as DSL and cable modem offer live, uncut video of the whole scene.
It's likely that someone mounting such a defence will eventually die in the process (proudly, on their feet). Maybe the message will get out: "I killed the 200 cops who wanted to arrest me for watching a movie I paid for." Maybe other cops would think twice when asked to enforce that kind of ludicruous law. But, if nothing is done, things will get worse.
Some of us object by wringing our hands, some by writing letters, some by peaceful (and perhaps not so peaceful) demonstrations, and some with violent retaliatory force. One can't ask anyone to endanger themselves in a manner they're not comfortable with in fighting this war, and I'm certainly not advocating enacting out the scenario above, but it is a war, and it will be fought -- human nature makes me certain of that.
Also, I've been told that keeping a cat indoors greatly extends it's life expectancy. A cat free to roam lives about two years, I'm told. I have had a (neutered) Persian cat for about 10 years now, and he is happy to remain inside.
® A registered trademark of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation. ;->
It isn't necessary to have a degree, but it doesn't hurt. Though, if I had gotten a Ph.D right after my Masters' degree I'd have been overqualified for most jobs available at the time. Today, I regret not having it.
This is a very good question. Of course, IANAL (and I'd wish that more L's would offer hypothetical opinions here, not to be construed as legal advice), so don't construe this as legal advice... that said, my understanding is as follows.
There is a principle that you have to accept people as they come. This means that, if you sneak up behind someone, shout "Boo!" and they drop dead of a heart attack, you are responsible for their death. You may or may not be criminally negligent or liable as well.
If the victim was participating in an activity, where sneaking up on people and shouting "Boo!" was expected, you are genererally in the clear, even if they had a weak heart. The organizers of such an activity do have a responsiblility to explain the potential risks though, lest they be found negligent.
But, if unexpectedly, and for no other reason than to frighten, you cause someone to die this way, you are in a heap of trouble. The reasoning is that you had no justification, other than your amusement, for the action, and so must bear the consequences for the results.
In the case of tapping someone on the shoulder to see if they're alive there's good reason for the action: you're looking for survivers of some tragedy (for example). If anything, you are trying to be helpful, and while this sometimes results in unfortunate accidents, helping others is an activity that is generally encouraged. Many jurisdictions have "good samaritan" laws for this reason: if you injure someone in a good-faith effort to help them, you can't be found legally liable (though, I'd limit that to criminal charges only because you are still responsible: "Judge: you paralized them while saving their life -- they're entitled to $1,000,000 compensation if they're willing to die for it (as they otherwise would)").
In this case, ORBZ was performing a social service, albeit taking the "law" into its own hands in policing servers. So the situation is unclear. Their "victims" certainly weren't in dire need of this "assistance". However, was what they were doing reasonable? They were simply sending standards-complient mail to servers that clearly were set up to accept it. An analogy would be sending a letter to someone to see if they send nasty, annoying mail back. Is it your fault if they go into fits of apoplexy instead because they have an epileptic seizure due to the particular shade of blue of the envelope of your letter? When they provide the mailbox?
The clincher, though, is that the mail server software was probably licensed without warranty from Lotus. So, here you have an organization taking on the risk of potentially buggy software and then trying to foist that responsibility on people who accept their invitation (I'd consider an MX publication an invitation) to use it.
I think that prosecution was dropped in this case, not because the city had a change of heart, but because legal council adviced them that they had a weak case. That would explain the flip-flopping tone of their press-release: "we don't have a case against you but you caused us grief because we used buggy code".
Sheeh, the state throws a few pennies into the research on packet-switched networks, and then thinks they ()jn the result.
Perhaps I should throw a quarter at the POTUS and ()jn him. Oh, wait, that's already been done, and I'm too late.
Only in the sense that it is a systemic attempt to curtail corrupt people. If people weren't corrupt or corruptable, there would be no need for such systemic safeguards. Furthermore, no system can safeguard anything if there aren't individuals who hold the principles the system is designed to protect dear enough to risk their lives for them.
I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees. I hope your chains rest lightly upon you.
Perhaps, GNSPL, or "General Networked Service Public License" would be better.
Honest mistakes need to be corrected, espescially in judicial matters. Those that make them need to redress their wrongs, and this is, indeed punishing, as it implies imposition of a hardship.
The U.S. Constitution was good, but not good enough. For one thing, those in the service of the public at large, should be held to higher ethical standards than usual, precisely because they affect the lives of so many. Abuse of that public trust, should be met with the harshest penalty. AFAIK, there is no notion of "high" treason within the U.S. legal framework that would allow for this.
The impediments put in place by the Constitution delayed the process, but still resulted in a powerful, albeit somewhat distributed government, that was ripe for corruption. I don't think that good government is enough to avoid such inevitabilities.
Perhaps even greater distribution of powers would, as you write, make government service unappealing to the corruptable, but this can lead to unacceptable latency when responding to a sudden threat (though I don't particularly buy that argument: if the threat is real, I'd expect rapid agreement of the state of emergency, and execution of strategic responses planned in advance). However, such decentralization would require a far more responsible and participatory electorate. I fear that the American public has been dumbed down too much for too long for that to happen.
"Crusade" would be far too noble a word to describe the struggles of an often-abusive government.
I'd think that frivolous lawsuit recognition would put a stop to the infinite progression you propose.
Obviously not. Witness the modern-day U.S.A., with it's anti-"terrorist" jihad. The government, as mandated by the constition, had decent safeguards to limit concentration of power to deter corruption. It just took some 200+ years for all the powers that were to collude.
As for the Ford Pinto: this was an example of negligence, not necessarily evil. I stand by my assertion that "systems", not being conscious beings can't be evil, only people can.
Yes, that was silly.
Also silly.
Stop. Threatening? Suggesting that a judge be liable for his actions is somehow a threat? I never understood this line of reasoning. So, if I say, "If you try to kill me, I will defend myself?" threatens you? (taking the reasoning to the extreme).
It's sad when justified cynicism is not recognized for being lost in the noise of arrogant folly. The feeling I get is that the defendant has lost all faith in the justice system and is mocking it.