The jury's job isn't to decide whether they think he's guilty or not, but to decide whether there is doubt of his guilt. It is entirely possible that the entire jury believed he was guilty but was not sure enough of it to convict him.
If decisions needed to be well-reasoned, virtually no politicians, journalists, CEOs or financial executives would be permitted within a mile of their workplace, advertising in its current form would be outlawed, and the Sci Fi channel would be showing Doctor Who.
I don't mind different types of traffic getting priority, as long as two things remain true. First, the bandwidth allocated to high and low priority remains the same as it is now. Second, the priority is for type of traffic not source of traffic.
I think you missed the point. Suppose the oven is the only significant power draw. By moving to a metered system, people who cook in the oven a couple times a week would see some small savings, those who cook one meal a day in it would pay a bit more than they are, and the person studying to be a pastry chef pays through the nose.
Of course you would rather your children not be around any pedophile, but since you can't accurately identify pedophiles you can't make that choice. What is being decided with this issue is whether pedophiles should have access to drawn images of underage characters. There are arguments to be had for both sides, but the choice I gave you is the one that is at issue.
Also, I didn't suggest that they wouldn't become a predator. It's possible that having a legal outlet might make them more likely to do something illegal.
Would you want said children around the sort of people that take pleasure in viewing photos such as the ones in question?
You don't actually have a choice in the matter, the question that you can change is whether or not those people are going to have access to those pictures or not. Would you rather have your children around a pedophile that has an outlet or one that doesn't?
P.S. Since I don't have access to the pictures, I'm assuming you're talking about anime style lolicon pictures rather than pictures of actual children.
I don't believe either is actually supported by the scientific method since you can't predict or test what's already happened. In fact, I can't think of any origin theory, religious or otherwise, that meets those criteria.
I suppose simply unfriending her would not be feasible. (Maybe she'd take away his computer if he tried or punish him or something)
There are clear and easy alternatives. Delete her posts after she makes them, or even better, use Facebook privacy controls to remove her ability to comment on his posts. I'm kinda surprised he didn't put her on Limited Profile, like everyone else seems to do. That's the best because people don't always realize they're being shut out of something.
Read the article, she allegedly hacked his account and posted under his name.
You can expect your neighbors to accommodate normal sensitivity, if you have higher than normal sensitivity you are responsible for protecting yourself.
For example, if your neighbors are playing their music loud at 2am, they are probably violating noise ordinances in your area. If they are playing it at a normal volume that most people can't even hear outside their property but you can, you are responsible for protecting yourself.
Your argument is reasonable for criminal charges, but in those cases the prosecutor is generally paid by the state. For civil charges a lawyer has the choice of whether to take the case and should have some responsibility to not take cases that are frivolous.
Slashdot Mirror
The jury's job isn't to decide whether they think he's guilty or not, but to decide whether there is doubt of his guilt. It is entirely possible that the entire jury believed he was guilty but was not sure enough of it to convict him.
If decisions needed to be well-reasoned, virtually no politicians, journalists, CEOs or financial executives would be permitted within a mile of their workplace, advertising in its current form would be outlawed, and the Sci Fi channel would be showing Doctor Who.
And Firefly.
A repressive government will want more results removed, but so will a government with more google users.
And now their are basically blackmailing voters by saying "vote for a 1% sales tax, or we'll take away your cops, firefighters, and universities".
Just let them know that if they do you'll be waiting outside the capitol building with molotovs.
Don't forget to include the military.
To be fair, its not 474MB/person in one year, its 474MB/person in 1/3 of one year. (still not a huge amount, but more significant)
I don't mind different types of traffic getting priority, as long as two things remain true. First, the bandwidth allocated to high and low priority remains the same as it is now. Second, the priority is for type of traffic not source of traffic.
I think you missed the point. Suppose the oven is the only significant power draw. By moving to a metered system, people who cook in the oven a couple times a week would see some small savings, those who cook one meal a day in it would pay a bit more than they are, and the person studying to be a pastry chef pays through the nose.
I hear people always talking smack about how you can just change ISPs if you don't like something, but where exactly is this really a viable option?
Everywhere but the US.
Don't forget to count the "lost sales" from people downloading music that's in the public domain.
5. Most people in the US don't consider IP to be a major issue when voting anyway.
Of course you would rather your children not be around any pedophile, but since you can't accurately identify pedophiles you can't make that choice. What is being decided with this issue is whether pedophiles should have access to drawn images of underage characters. There are arguments to be had for both sides, but the choice I gave you is the one that is at issue.
Also, I didn't suggest that they wouldn't become a predator. It's possible that having a legal outlet might make them more likely to do something illegal.
Maybe true, but that won't stop people from being prosecuted under them.
Would you want said children around the sort of people that take pleasure in viewing photos such as the ones in question?
You don't actually have a choice in the matter, the question that you can change is whether or not those people are going to have access to those pictures or not. Would you rather have your children around a pedophile that has an outlet or one that doesn't?
P.S. Since I don't have access to the pictures, I'm assuming you're talking about anime style lolicon pictures rather than pictures of actual children.
I don't believe either is actually supported by the scientific method since you can't predict or test what's already happened. In fact, I can't think of any origin theory, religious or otherwise, that meets those criteria.
Or their partner is at least two years older than them. (at least in this state)
She allegedly hacked into his account and made posts from it so no, he can't just block her.
I suppose simply unfriending her would not be feasible. (Maybe she'd take away his computer if he tried or punish him or something)
There are clear and easy alternatives. Delete her posts after she makes them, or even better, use Facebook privacy controls to remove her ability to comment on his posts. I'm kinda surprised he didn't put her on Limited Profile, like everyone else seems to do. That's the best because people don't always realize they're being shut out of something.
Read the article, she allegedly hacked his account and posted under his name.
Not yet it isn't, still has to be made into law. After that, well, I'd be surprised if it ever got into the right hands.
You can expect your neighbors to accommodate normal sensitivity, if you have higher than normal sensitivity you are responsible for protecting yourself.
For example, if your neighbors are playing their music loud at 2am, they are probably violating noise ordinances in your area. If they are playing it at a normal volume that most people can't even hear outside their property but you can, you are responsible for protecting yourself.
Well yea, but then he wouldn't have a gold plated house.
Your argument is reasonable for criminal charges, but in those cases the prosecutor is generally paid by the state. For civil charges a lawyer has the choice of whether to take the case and should have some responsibility to not take cases that are frivolous.
Unfortunately I believe that only applies to documents that have actually become law not ones that are being considered.
Unless this is fake and the real document is worse.
However, in many places there are laws to prevent private individuals from taking pictures of others without their consent.