You cannot be forced to provide testimony or evidence against yourself. By tracking your vehicle, the state is forcing you to disclose your location at all times against your will, which is also a violation of the 5th.
That doesn't sound right; by that logic wiretapping would never be allowed because the defendant may incriminate himself against his will.
The article says under the settlement, she receives attorney's fees, with a portion of it going to fund her research. If this is true it is likely against the rules. It is entirely possible that the settlement includes $230,000 in attorney's fees, and $10,000 to fund her research, but that's not what the article says.
The whole concept of jury nullification then becomes endangered should a judge decide the jury's actions were inappropriate. There should have to be a much more difficult process involved to have a judge overturn a jury's decision.
Jury nullification is more of an issue in criminal cases. And in those cases a judge cannot vacate a jury decision of "not guilty," though they can vacate guilty verdicts (which I think is a good thing.)
But the traditional jury selection process rejects people with critical thinking skills - engineers in particular.
Well, first of all when I think engineers I tend not to think "critical thinking skills"; I mean, I think "quantitative skills" and "analytical skills", but considering how many of the leading creationists are engineers, how many subscribe zealously to weird political views, and how many are so prone to adopt conspiracy theories (zomg the judge was bribed), "critical thinking skills" doesn't come to mind.
Also do you have any data to back up the idea that engineers are excluded more than other professions?
Note how they never do that when the loser isn't big and rich...
Where on earth did you get that idea? I never understand how slashdotters come up with these grand pronouncements. Judges vacate jury decisions plenty of times, and plenty of them are where the loser is small and poor (or even destitute).
Wow, so it only cost $150,000 (+) in attorneys fees so that she could establish her right to do something she should have been able to do all along? Man, our system ROCKS. Color me jaded to find irony that the head of the litigation team is the one so thrilled...
Huh?? You can say that about almost any case; at the end one party is going to have been found not to been in the wrong, and they will have been out legal fees.
That's not how it works, any money that is coming in specifically as attorneys' fees cannot be shared with non-attorneys. The court itself doesn't have to be involved.
That's not how it works, any money that is coming in specifically as attorneys' fees cannot be shared with non-attorneys. The court itself doesn't have to be involved.
but it almost seems as though we just dont care about or rights and freedoms as long as we're marketed a product that appears to cater to our wants reglardless of our rights
Out of curiousity, what freedom are you demanding here? To download something that is copyrighted?
For me, the much more thought provoking bit is that he first managed to get his PhD in biochemistry. In contrast to executives, I don't normally think of chemists as being greedy unethical liars
There are many, many executives with PhDs, especially in the agricultural and pharmaceutical industries. Being a scientist doesn't put you on some higher moral ground.
I'd like to know why he was in prison if he was so benevolent to the FBI and so harmful to the evil-doers in his company.
Because in addition to helping the FBI, he was also committing crimes.
I'd also like to know how he could afford to get a Phd.
That question doesn't make any sense. I would assume he did it the same way most PhD students pay for it, through a combination of grants, work, maybe savings...I don't know. Why are you even asking this? Are you under the impression he got it while in prison? Or after prison? If so, why would you jump to such an illogical conclusion?
And to be honest, they $60 price isn't that much if it's a great game. You pay atleast $15+ to go the movies, probably even more if you make a night out of it. You might spend the same amount in bars too. Both of those give only a few hours of entertainment value, and to be honest aren't all that fun all the time. Good games give a lot more entertainment and fun hours. My stats for Left4Dead show 947 hours and I've probably spend *a lot* in WoW too. And dont even get me started on the civilization and settlers series.
And though some of you may be too young to remember this, games today cost only slightly more than the games of $20 years ago; yet they cost a lot more to make (though this is offset by efficiencies of scale). An A-list retail computer game in 1989 could easily cost 40-50 dollars.
Language - latin - its not called a dead language for nothing. Replaced by another, and more efficient system of language
Latin isn't inefficient; it's actually a fairly well-constructed language with far more logical consistency than the languages that sprang from it.
The point I am making, and that you seem to also understand, is that there is a fundamental flaw in the way that a fiat currency works in a society. That flaw eventually leads to its demise.
Indeed. But I think that's what the war on (some) drugs is really about -- a power grab that has turned the US into a police state. We have secret police ("plainclothesmen" and "undercover agents") only because of victimless crimes like drugs, gambling, and prostitution. We have the highest incarceration rate of any nation on earth, with a high percentage of them being non-violent drug prisoners.
The war on drugs is more a result of a strain of puritanism in this country than a conscious power grab, I think. It's the same thing that caused prohibition, only there are fewer drug users than drinkers, so no way to politically end it at the moment.
Desktop, workstation and server OS are obsolete ideas. In 20 years we probably won't even have these things or at least not worry about them. I can't say for certain what will replace the desktop, but I think it is going away in our lifetimes. Or perhaps we'll just have one platform that runs the same OS and same applications on our laptops, servers and phones.
They've been predicting the death of the desktop and a return to centralized computing for 20 years.
Slashdot Mirror
This type of weakening of police powers is precisely why groups like the Yakuza are able to get away with so much in Japan.
Gojira, too.
You cannot be forced to provide testimony or evidence against yourself. By tracking your vehicle, the state is forcing you to disclose your location at all times against your will, which is also a violation of the 5th.
That doesn't sound right; by that logic wiretapping would never be allowed because the defendant may incriminate himself against his will.
The article says under the settlement, she receives attorney's fees, with a portion of it going to fund her research. If this is true it is likely against the rules. It is entirely possible that the settlement includes $230,000 in attorney's fees, and $10,000 to fund her research, but that's not what the article says.
The whole concept of jury nullification then becomes endangered should a judge decide the jury's actions were inappropriate. There should have to be a much more difficult process involved to have a judge overturn a jury's decision.
Jury nullification is more of an issue in criminal cases. And in those cases a judge cannot vacate a jury decision of "not guilty," though they can vacate guilty verdicts (which I think is a good thing.)
But the traditional jury selection process rejects people with critical thinking skills - engineers in particular.
Well, first of all when I think engineers I tend not to think "critical thinking skills"; I mean, I think "quantitative skills" and "analytical skills", but considering how many of the leading creationists are engineers, how many subscribe zealously to weird political views, and how many are so prone to adopt conspiracy theories (zomg the judge was bribed), "critical thinking skills" doesn't come to mind.
Also do you have any data to back up the idea that engineers are excluded more than other professions?
Note how they never do that when the loser isn't big and rich...
Where on earth did you get that idea? I never understand how slashdotters come up with these grand pronouncements. Judges vacate jury decisions plenty of times, and plenty of them are where the loser is small and poor (or even destitute).
Federal judges are appointed, not elected. Some state judges are elected, but not all of them.
Wow, so it only cost $150,000 (+) in attorneys fees so that she could establish her right to do something she should have been able to do all along? Man, our system ROCKS. Color me jaded to find irony that the head of the litigation team is the one so thrilled...
Huh?? You can say that about almost any case; at the end one party is going to have been found not to been in the wrong, and they will have been out legal fees.
That's not how it works, any money that is coming in specifically as attorneys' fees cannot be shared with non-attorneys. The court itself doesn't have to be involved.
You don't have an answer, in other words.
That's not how it works, any money that is coming in specifically as attorneys' fees cannot be shared with non-attorneys. The court itself doesn't have to be involved.
Yes, there are solutions. If you can afford to put out $400k in lawyers fees upfront, and then only receive $240k of that back for a $160k loss.
I doubt she actually paid out that much; I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't pay a cent. You can get attorneys fees even for pro bono cases.
Under the settlement, Shloss's lawyers will split the fees and Shloss will be allowed to keep a portion for a research fund.
Sounds like impermissible fee sharing to me; generally attorneys are not allowed to share fees with a non-lawyer.
but it almost seems as though we just dont care about or rights and freedoms as long as we're marketed a product that appears to cater to our wants reglardless of our rights
Out of curiousity, what freedom are you demanding here? To download something that is copyrighted?
If you buy one of these suckers, you'd best make sure your girlfriend really enjoys dusting. Oh, wait a minute...this is Slashdot.
I'd also point out that, in addition to slashdot, this is also the 21st century.
For me, the much more thought provoking bit is that he first managed to get his PhD in biochemistry. In contrast to executives, I don't normally think of chemists as being greedy unethical liars
There are many, many executives with PhDs, especially in the agricultural and pharmaceutical industries. Being a scientist doesn't put you on some higher moral ground.
I'd like to know why he was in prison if he was so benevolent to the FBI and so harmful to the evil-doers in his company.
Because in addition to helping the FBI, he was also committing crimes.
I'd also like to know how he could afford to get a Phd.
That question doesn't make any sense. I would assume he did it the same way most PhD students pay for it, through a combination of grants, work, maybe savings...I don't know. Why are you even asking this? Are you under the impression he got it while in prison? Or after prison? If so, why would you jump to such an illogical conclusion?
Maybe repay the people he ripped off? I know. Completely unreasonable isn't it.
Yes, it is. After the stuff ADM pulled, and the small fine they got hit with, why are you so eager to see them get money?
And to be honest, they $60 price isn't that much if it's a great game. You pay atleast $15+ to go the movies, probably even more if you make a night out of it. You might spend the same amount in bars too. Both of those give only a few hours of entertainment value, and to be honest aren't all that fun all the time. Good games give a lot more entertainment and fun hours. My stats for Left4Dead show 947 hours and I've probably spend *a lot* in WoW too. And dont even get me started on the civilization and settlers series.
And though some of you may be too young to remember this, games today cost only slightly more than the games of $20 years ago; yet they cost a lot more to make (though this is offset by efficiencies of scale). An A-list retail computer game in 1989 could easily cost 40-50 dollars.
Can you also show me a story where Slashdotters were in favour of people who profit from copyright infringement?
Any story involving the Pirate Bay?
Language - latin - its not called a dead language for nothing. Replaced by another, and more efficient system of language
Latin isn't inefficient; it's actually a fairly well-constructed language with far more logical consistency than the languages that sprang from it.
The point I am making, and that you seem to also understand, is that there is a fundamental flaw in the way that a fiat currency works in a society. That flaw eventually leads to its demise.
That's not a point, it's an opinion.
I use Linux and I hate rebooting. Not because it takes a long time to boot -- it doesn't -- it takes maybe 30 seconds.
That's a long time.
Indeed. But I think that's what the war on (some) drugs is really about -- a power grab that has turned the US into a police state. We have secret police ("plainclothesmen" and "undercover agents") only because of victimless crimes like drugs, gambling, and prostitution. We have the highest incarceration rate of any nation on earth, with a high percentage of them being non-violent drug prisoners.
The war on drugs is more a result of a strain of puritanism in this country than a conscious power grab, I think. It's the same thing that caused prohibition, only there are fewer drug users than drinkers, so no way to politically end it at the moment.
Isn't that the crippled no-storage version?
Nope. It has 256 MB of memory, which is approximately 6 times as much as my first hard drive had. Enough to save games apparently, from what I hear.
Desktop, workstation and server OS are obsolete ideas. In 20 years we probably won't even have these things or at least not worry about them. I can't say for certain what will replace the desktop, but I think it is going away in our lifetimes. Or perhaps we'll just have one platform that runs the same OS and same applications on our laptops, servers and phones.
They've been predicting the death of the desktop and a return to centralized computing for 20 years.