The GNUstep people have done the clever/important/hard part, i.e. the coding.
If it's so easy why haven't the GNUstep people already done it? I find it fascinating how people on slashdot counterintuitively believe things they can do by definition must be hard, but things they can't do must be easy. Makes no sense.
Actually cold water tends to have a lot more organisms living in it because there's more nutrients circulating. In warmer waters the warm water rises to the top, and the cold water stays in the bottom. When there's less of a difference in temperature between the upper layers and lower layers, there's more mixing, and nutrients have a chance to well up.
The best fishing areas on the planet are in cold water (like the cold currents running north up the west coast of South America).
Then how do you explain the fact that many private colleges and universities exist, and that these private institutions often provide a higher quality of education that the government-funded institutions?
How do you explain the fact that many private colleges and universities provide a lower quality of education than a lot of private alternatives? There are a lot of first-rate public universities that do a very good job.
Well I'm not familiar with all 25,000 cases, but obviously every one is going to have a standard of proof that the RIAA has to meet, presumably the usual "preponderance of the evidence" listed in this story. I can't really envision a trial, even a bench trial, where the standard of proof isn't set forth at some point. I probably shouldn't speak more to the decision because the link in the story doesn't work, so I can't see either the magistrate's report, the objection, or the court's response to the objection.
I think you're right. I mean maybe it would belong on the front page as part of a larger post listing each development in the trial, but not a story by itself.
As far as defense, Riser has nowhere near the money to put up a brillant OJ style defense that can get you out of anything. Plus he's a white guy, so the race card won't play very well.
Money can't buy you freedom. Look at Martha Stewart. Or Jeffrey Skilling. Or Andrew Luster. Or Alfred Taubman.
The government has a pretty easy time with the Grand Jury becaus it's not an adversarial process; they present their side of the case and that's it. Grand Juries just sort of a gatekeeper function (like judges do when they decide whether to issue arrest warrants) before it gets to the real trial, in order to make sure the really baseless cases are thrown out.
Suppose a state congress changes its murder laws so that it is okay for a white person to kill a black person. Should the jury blindly enforce such a law?
In fact, the main problem with jury nullification is that for a good chunk of our nation's history, the opposite of the above situation was true, especially in the deep south. The law said it's not ok for anyone to kill anyone else; white juries wouldn't convict white killers of black people, however.
And how does a jury prevent that if they are supposed to follow the instructions of the judge. The ruling class makes the law, and the judge instructs the jury that they have to follow those laws to the letter. "No, we aren't MAKING you jump through the hoops. We're only making the hoops and then telling you that you HAVE to jump through them." I believe the founding fathers intent for the jurors to recognize the hoops and refuse to jump through them.
You're misinterpreting how it works.
There are questions of law, and questions of fact. The judge's job is to decide questions of law, for example whether certain evidence can legally be admitted, whether the state or defense is allowed to present certain legal arguments, etc.
The jury's job is to decide questions of fact, like "did W shoot X?", or "should X's story be believed, or should Z's?"
When the judge gives an instruction to the jury, it's simply to tell what the law requires. For example, in Florida the standard jury instruction to define robbery is:
To prove the crime of Robbery, the State must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) took the (money or property described in charge) from the person or custody of (person alleged).
2. Force, violence, assault, or putting in fear was used in the course of the taking.
3. The property taken was of some value.
4. The taking was with the intent to permanently or temporarily [deprive (victim) of [his] [her] right to the property or any benefit from it] [appropriate the property of (victim) to [his] [her] own use or to the use of any person not entitled to it].
Now it's up to the jury to decide whether the State met its burden of proof for each element of the crime. The judge isn't telling the jury to convict or not convict, but just what the law requires to be shown.
IAAL and you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. You're not automatically responsible for the actions of your children in most jurisdictions, though you may be liable under general negligence theories if a reasonable person in your situation would have exercised control over their children. Like if you knew your child has a tendency to stab people with a fork at the dinner table, and you bring the little darling to a dinner party.
In terms I know we'll understand: programming skills != social skills, just as chess skills != political foresight
Only chess was a political institution in the USSR. As Kasparov came up the ranks he became intimately familiar with the government, and had to deal with the people in power frequently. Furthermore, the Soviet chess machine was very much a political organization too. Kasparov was just the face of Soviet chess, he had many players who basically subordinated themselves to advancing his game, in terms of developing strategies, etc.
The impression the media here gives us is that Putin is a ruthless dictator and enemy of the people. (Media bias, anyone?)
A lot of times the media outside of a country gives you a better idea than the media inside. 80% approval rating might just mean a lot of people in Russia don't have an accurate view of what's going on.
don't understand why you Americans are so agreeable when it comes to having your civil liberties squashed. Why don't you all speak up and remind your representative that you used to live in a free country and would like to once again. Enough of the government spin masters controlling everything.
The idea that Microsoft invented any such thing is preposterous, and if the USPTO lawyer drones actually issue such a patent it will completely prove how totally clueless they are.
Patents are issued by patent examiners, not patent lawyers. Blame the engineers, computer scientists, biologists, chemists, and assorted scoundrels who actually are the ones issuing them.
People are mangling Republican and conservative, socially liberal and economically liberal, and "liberal" is in "democrats" and liberal is in classical sense of liberalism.
The people who are mangling it are the ones who, while discussing United States politics, use liberal to mean "classically liberal". Words and meanings change.
Slashdot Mirror
The GNUstep people have done the clever/important/hard part, i.e. the coding.
If it's so easy why haven't the GNUstep people already done it? I find it fascinating how people on slashdot counterintuitively believe things they can do by definition must be hard, but things they can't do must be easy. Makes no sense.
Actually cold water tends to have a lot more organisms living in it because there's more nutrients circulating. In warmer waters the warm water rises to the top, and the cold water stays in the bottom. When there's less of a difference in temperature between the upper layers and lower layers, there's more mixing, and nutrients have a chance to well up.
The best fishing areas on the planet are in cold water (like the cold currents running north up the west coast of South America).
Then how do you explain the fact that many private colleges and universities exist, and that these private institutions often provide a higher quality of education that the government-funded institutions?
How do you explain the fact that many private colleges and universities provide a lower quality of education than a lot of private alternatives? There are a lot of first-rate public universities that do a very good job.
The problem isn't just that ESR is a third-rate coder; it's that he puts himself forward as a first-rate one.
Finally someone of our leaders
ESR? A leader? Hahahahahaha....
Well I'm not familiar with all 25,000 cases, but obviously every one is going to have a standard of proof that the RIAA has to meet, presumably the usual "preponderance of the evidence" listed in this story. I can't really envision a trial, even a bench trial, where the standard of proof isn't set forth at some point. I probably shouldn't speak more to the decision because the link in the story doesn't work, so I can't see either the magistrate's report, the objection, or the court's response to the objection.
I think you're right. I mean maybe it would belong on the front page as part of a larger post listing each development in the trial, but not a story by itself.
BATMAN BEGINS (forgive the caps, I'm copy 'n pasting).
Wouldn't it have taken less time to rewrite "Batman Begins" than it did to write "forgive the caps, I'm copy 'n pasting)?
As far as defense, Riser has nowhere near the money to put up a brillant OJ style defense that can get you out of anything. Plus he's a white guy, so the race card won't play very well.
Money can't buy you freedom. Look at Martha Stewart. Or Jeffrey Skilling. Or Andrew Luster. Or Alfred Taubman.
The government has a pretty easy time with the Grand Jury becaus it's not an adversarial process; they present their side of the case and that's it. Grand Juries just sort of a gatekeeper function (like judges do when they decide whether to issue arrest warrants) before it gets to the real trial, in order to make sure the really baseless cases are thrown out.
Suppose a state congress changes its murder laws so that it is okay for a white person to kill a black person. Should the jury blindly enforce such a law?
In fact, the main problem with jury nullification is that for a good chunk of our nation's history, the opposite of the above situation was true, especially in the deep south. The law said it's not ok for anyone to kill anyone else; white juries wouldn't convict white killers of black people, however.
And how does a jury prevent that if they are supposed to follow the instructions of the judge. The ruling class makes the law, and the judge instructs the jury that they have to follow those laws to the letter. "No, we aren't MAKING you jump through the hoops. We're only making the hoops and then telling you that you HAVE to jump through them." I believe the founding fathers intent for the jurors to recognize the hoops and refuse to jump through them.
You're misinterpreting how it works.
There are questions of law, and questions of fact. The judge's job is to decide questions of law, for example whether certain evidence can legally be admitted, whether the state or defense is allowed to present certain legal arguments, etc.
The jury's job is to decide questions of fact, like "did W shoot X?", or "should X's story be believed, or should Z's?"
When the judge gives an instruction to the jury, it's simply to tell what the law requires. For example, in Florida the standard jury instruction to define robbery is:
To prove the crime of Robbery, the State must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) took the (money or property described in charge) from the person or custody of (person alleged). 2. Force, violence, assault, or putting in fear was used in the course of the taking. 3. The property taken was of some value. 4. The taking was with the intent to permanently or temporarily [deprive (victim) of [his] [her] right to the property or any benefit from it] [appropriate the property of (victim) to [his] [her] own use or to the use of any person not entitled to it].
Now it's up to the jury to decide whether the State met its burden of proof for each element of the crime. The judge isn't telling the jury to convict or not convict, but just what the law requires to be shown.
Nah, the kids are presumably judgment proof at this point. I mean, can they really be pulling in that much income?
IAAL and you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. You're not automatically responsible for the actions of your children in most jurisdictions, though you may be liable under general negligence theories if a reasonable person in your situation would have exercised control over their children. Like if you knew your child has a tendency to stab people with a fork at the dinner table, and you bring the little darling to a dinner party.
None of the behavior of the RIAA is any different from Organized crime.
Except that the RIAA doesn't kill anyone, which is actually kind of a big difference.
Oh stop praising Mr. Big Shot, with his impeccable grammar and spelling, and completely reasonable and convincing arguments.
I've never seen that provision, that actually makes me a feel a bit more positively about the government here in Florida.
Stringing together a few highly evocative elements with minimal distractions seems to be enough to get your brain to do the rest.
Text adventures did the same thing; games like Trinity or Planetfall had some very emotional moments.
In terms I know we'll understand: programming skills != social skills, just as chess skills != political foresight
Only chess was a political institution in the USSR. As Kasparov came up the ranks he became intimately familiar with the government, and had to deal with the people in power frequently. Furthermore, the Soviet chess machine was very much a political organization too. Kasparov was just the face of Soviet chess, he had many players who basically subordinated themselves to advancing his game, in terms of developing strategies, etc.
The impression the media here gives us is that Putin is a ruthless dictator and enemy of the people. (Media bias, anyone?)
A lot of times the media outside of a country gives you a better idea than the media inside. 80% approval rating might just mean a lot of people in Russia don't have an accurate view of what's going on.
don't understand why you Americans are so agreeable when it comes to having your civil liberties squashed. Why don't you all speak up and remind your representative that you used to live in a free country and would like to once again. Enough of the government spin masters controlling everything.
May I inquire as to which country you hail from?
The idea that Microsoft invented any such thing is preposterous, and if the USPTO lawyer drones actually issue such a patent it will completely prove how totally clueless they are.
Patents are issued by patent examiners, not patent lawyers. Blame the engineers, computer scientists, biologists, chemists, and assorted scoundrels who actually are the ones issuing them.
And now the Safety Commision is a bit concerned?
Yes, exactly. They're a "bit" concerned. That's it. That's all. How can you be that outraged over them NOT TAKING ACTION?
People are mangling Republican and conservative, socially liberal and economically liberal, and "liberal" is in "democrats" and liberal is in classical sense of liberalism.
The people who are mangling it are the ones who, while discussing United States politics, use liberal to mean "classically liberal". Words and meanings change.
Why do people defend Microsoft so often?
They don't.