I'd rather have HTML5. Make no mistake, this isn't Adobe catering to Linux users because they're nice. Their biggest niche, streaming video, is in trouble. Flash could be made obsolete overnight if web designers decide to switch to HTML5. If you're designing a web site on a 64 bit Linux workstation, what technology are you going to use to stream video?
It's symmetrical. From one arbitrarily chosen default position it's a reward. From the other arbitrarily chosen default position it's a punishment. Same thing.
As a further example, consider subsidies and fines. A subsidy for growing corn is the same as a fine for not growing corn. A fine for parking in a handicapped spot is the same as a subsidy for not parking in a handicapped spot.
Either way you look at it, there is an incentive being provided. What incentive are you offering innocent people when you offer them a plea bargain?
A trial is the normal procedure that results in the normal sentence. A plea baragain is the exception, and may lighten the punishment as an incentive to proceed quickly and in a less troublesome way.
Except that 95% of cases are plea bargained. Plea bargaining is the normal procedure now, and getting a trial is the exception.
No, I only happen to be talking about guilty people, as in the case from TFA being discussed. You're the one who imagines otherwise.
If you're talking about plea bargains as a public policy you have to consider their affects on the falsely accused. Since the only way to legally determine guilt from innocence is a trial, and plea bargains preclude a trial you can't selectively offer plea bargains to only the guilty. Nor would you want to if you could.
That is a ridiculously naive statement. The fact is innocent people take plea bargains all the time. People will choose the devil they know (the plea bargain) over the devil they don't know (risking a trial) even if they are innocent.
No, I see that you're changing what it is that you're complaining about. Before you were complaining about the government not being able to afford to give a fair trial.
No, the GP was using cost as an excuse to avoid giving fair trials. I was merely pointing out that plea bargaining precludes fair trials.
They don't get a longer sentence if they actually go through a trial. They get the sentence they get. What happens is they get a shorter sentence
This is the exact same thing and you know it. Don't be disingenuous.
Why are you putting words in my mouth? Who said anything about copping to a crime they didn't commit?
Because innocent people copping to crimes they didn't commit is a completely foreseeable and unavoidable consequence of plea bargaining.
This is about copping to less than the crime they've committed
Which would be fine if plea bargains were only ever offered to people who committed crimes. You are approaching this entire subject with a presumption of guilt.
Try exercising some empathy and put your self in the shoes of an innocent indigent who has been falsely accused. You're going to assume the state has it out for you no matter what, since that's what you've learned through experience. If the state gives you two options, you're going to pick the lower sentence because you don't believe you're going to get a fair trial.
It really takes a lot of faith in the system to choose a jury trial. Faith that is not justified.
If they want that trial, all they have to do is not accept the plea offer. You do understand that part, right?
Sure. Do you understand the part where if they make that choice and lose they end up with a greater punishment than otherwise? Do you think the government should be in the business of discouraging people from exercising their constitutional rights?
Do you see how innocent people can make the same calculation as guilty people? If they don't have faith in the legal system to acquit them(which is only sensible), how they would be tempted to cop to a crime they didn't commit? Are you OK with that?
I suspect you do see all that, and simply don't care.
Yes, raking people over the coals for not cooperating with the prosecution is standard procedure in many departments. The question is, is that OK? Is it really common sense to make sure the falsely accused know that their best chance is to take a deal? Is that the kind of justice system we want? Where it's better for 100 innocent men to cop to a deal than for one prosecutor to be inconvenienced?
Plea deals shorten this whole process and save a bunch of taxpayer dollars. Simple as that.
So your answer is "it's too expensive to provide people with fair trials, so we won't". And you think that's OK? If the state can't provide everyone it arrests with a fair trial, the only just solution is to arrest fewer people.
Prosecutors have a lot of leeway in what they can charge. If there are mitigating circumstances, they should choose the lesser charge whether the person admits to the claim or not. There should be NO quid pro quo in the justice system.
Turn your idea around. Do you think it's appropriate for a prosecutor to levy harsher charges than he thinks is actually justified, just because someone wants a trial? That's exactly what you are promoting here.
It's injustice when an innocent person is bullied into taking a plea to avoid a harsher sentence. Under plea barganing, you get a harsher sentence if you exercise your right to a trial. How can that be portrayed as anything else but punishment for exercising your rights? If you believe in justice, why are you encouraging innocent people to cop to crimes they didn't commit?
There are a couple problems with it. Google can still see all your private data. If you used G+ pseudonymously, it would limit the privacy implications giving it all to Google.
You may also want to hide your real identity from those you are networking with. I have certainly interacted with people online who I enjoyed and wanted to keep contact with (e.g. would add them to a social network) but don't necessarily feel comfortable inviting into my real life. Using a pseudonym gives me an extra layer of control.
I own an Apple IIgs, Commodore 128, Atari 600XL, TI99/4A, TRS-80 Model III, CoCo2, Macintosh SE/30, Tandy 1000, and a pretty bitchin Voodoo II SLI rig.
What? Yes, I do have a girlfriend. Why do you ask?
Huh? If you have a high quality end product the tools used are very relevent, as that is what made it possible. "Ooh, how'd you do that?" is a great thing to hear. If you have a low quality end product, the tools used are irrelevant. Nobody cares what went into a piece of shit.
How am I supposed to keep track of which lightbulb was purchased when, from whom, with what guarantees? I have much more important things to worry about.
A CFL costs about $3. If it goes out, I can run to the store and get a new one for $3. Or I can dig through my records, try and find the packaging for the bulb, see what the warranty is on it, contact the manufacturer, wait for a replacement. I've already spent more than $3 of my time doing paperwork before the dead CFL is out the door.
No, if this is going to work it's got to be easy. Put a chip in the bulb that keeps track of the hours it has run. If it goes out before the warrantied number of hours, you can take it to ANY retailer of CFLs for a free replacement.
Anything harder than the above solution will simply be too complex for people to manage.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent post exhibits a keenly accurate understanding of the American legal system.
No one sane believes in Jehovah either.
would you rather have nothing but Gnash?
I'd rather have HTML5. Make no mistake, this isn't Adobe catering to Linux users because they're nice. Their biggest niche, streaming video, is in trouble. Flash could be made obsolete overnight if web designers decide to switch to HTML5. If you're designing a web site on a 64 bit Linux workstation, what technology are you going to use to stream video?
Yes, but an empirical determination of intelligence outweighs any attempt to assay intelligence through indirect means such as mass ratios.
birds still have larger body-to-brain ratios than reptiles
What does that have to do with anything? The only meaningful measurement of intelligence is problem solving ability.
If by "the same" you mean "the opposite,"
It's symmetrical. From one arbitrarily chosen default position it's a reward. From the other arbitrarily chosen default position it's a punishment. Same thing.
As a further example, consider subsidies and fines. A subsidy for growing corn is the same as a fine for not growing corn. A fine for parking in a handicapped spot is the same as a subsidy for not parking in a handicapped spot.
Either way you look at it, there is an incentive being provided. What incentive are you offering innocent people when you offer them a plea bargain?
A trial is the normal procedure that results in the normal sentence. A plea baragain is the exception, and may lighten the punishment as an incentive to proceed quickly and in a less troublesome way.
Except that 95% of cases are plea bargained. Plea bargaining is the normal procedure now, and getting a trial is the exception.
No, I only happen to be talking about guilty people, as in the case from TFA being discussed. You're the one who imagines otherwise.
If you're talking about plea bargains as a public policy you have to consider their affects on the falsely accused. Since the only way to legally determine guilt from innocence is a trial, and plea bargains preclude a trial you can't selectively offer plea bargains to only the guilty. Nor would you want to if you could.
That is a ridiculously naive statement. The fact is innocent people take plea bargains all the time. People will choose the devil they know (the plea bargain) over the devil they don't know (risking a trial) even if they are innocent.
If he's not guilty, then a trial should acquit him.
It should, but often times it doesn't. That's a big risk to take, and many innocent people don't feel it's going to work out in their favor.
No, I see that you're changing what it is that you're complaining about. Before you were complaining about the government not being able to afford to give a fair trial.
No, the GP was using cost as an excuse to avoid giving fair trials. I was merely pointing out that plea bargaining precludes fair trials.
They don't get a longer sentence if they actually go through a trial. They get the sentence they get. What happens is they get a shorter sentence
This is the exact same thing and you know it. Don't be disingenuous.
Why are you putting words in my mouth? Who said anything about copping to a crime they didn't commit?
Because innocent people copping to crimes they didn't commit is a completely foreseeable and unavoidable consequence of plea bargaining.
This is about copping to less than the crime they've committed
Which would be fine if plea bargains were only ever offered to people who committed crimes. You are approaching this entire subject with a presumption of guilt.
Try exercising some empathy and put your self in the shoes of an innocent indigent who has been falsely accused. You're going to assume the state has it out for you no matter what, since that's what you've learned through experience. If the state gives you two options, you're going to pick the lower sentence because you don't believe you're going to get a fair trial.
It really takes a lot of faith in the system to choose a jury trial. Faith that is not justified.
If they want that trial, all they have to do is not accept the plea offer. You do understand that part, right?
Sure. Do you understand the part where if they make that choice and lose they end up with a greater punishment than otherwise? Do you think the government should be in the business of discouraging people from exercising their constitutional rights?
Do you see how innocent people can make the same calculation as guilty people? If they don't have faith in the legal system to acquit them(which is only sensible), how they would be tempted to cop to a crime they didn't commit? Are you OK with that?
I suspect you do see all that, and simply don't care.
Yes, raking people over the coals for not cooperating with the prosecution is standard procedure in many departments. The question is, is that OK? Is it really common sense to make sure the falsely accused know that their best chance is to take a deal? Is that the kind of justice system we want? Where it's better for 100 innocent men to cop to a deal than for one prosecutor to be inconvenienced?
Plea deals nullify due process. As long as you are punished for exercising your right to a trial, there is no due process at all.
Plea deals shorten this whole process and save a bunch of taxpayer dollars. Simple as that.
So your answer is "it's too expensive to provide people with fair trials, so we won't". And you think that's OK? If the state can't provide everyone it arrests with a fair trial, the only just solution is to arrest fewer people.
Prosecutors have a lot of leeway in what they can charge. If there are mitigating circumstances, they should choose the lesser charge whether the person admits to the claim or not. There should be NO quid pro quo in the justice system.
Turn your idea around. Do you think it's appropriate for a prosecutor to levy harsher charges than he thinks is actually justified, just because someone wants a trial? That's exactly what you are promoting here.
It's injustice when an innocent person is bullied into taking a plea to avoid a harsher sentence. Under plea barganing, you get a harsher sentence if you exercise your right to a trial. How can that be portrayed as anything else but punishment for exercising your rights? If you believe in justice, why are you encouraging innocent people to cop to crimes they didn't commit?
That's the point. The government shouldn't be passing laws it can't reasonably enforce.
WPA2 (much harder and slower, but still doable, unless you rotate them daily).
If it's so slow, why would you change they keys daily? If your key has sufficient entropy, you are set for years.
No, of course not. Look at all the bad DMCA notices that have been issued over the past decade and how nothing has happened to anyone for it.
I mean, sure it says there are penalties in the law. But why would you assume the government would follow the law?
I dunno, I've known 20 year old college girls who took great pictures of macaque.
2) Is intentionality is required for moral rights of art creation?
There are no moral rights of art creation. Copyright is at best an expedient. It exists to promote the progress of useful arts.
So says AC...
There are a couple problems with it. Google can still see all your private data. If you used G+ pseudonymously, it would limit the privacy implications giving it all to Google.
You may also want to hide your real identity from those you are networking with. I have certainly interacted with people online who I enjoyed and wanted to keep contact with (e.g. would add them to a social network) but don't necessarily feel comfortable inviting into my real life. Using a pseudonym gives me an extra layer of control.
I own an Apple IIgs, Commodore 128, Atari 600XL, TI99/4A, TRS-80 Model III, CoCo2, Macintosh SE/30, Tandy 1000, and a pretty bitchin Voodoo II SLI rig.
What? Yes, I do have a girlfriend. Why do you ask?
Huh? If you have a high quality end product the tools used are very relevent, as that is what made it possible. "Ooh, how'd you do that?" is a great thing to hear. If you have a low quality end product, the tools used are irrelevant. Nobody cares what went into a piece of shit.
How am I supposed to keep track of which lightbulb was purchased when, from whom, with what guarantees? I have much more important things to worry about.
A CFL costs about $3. If it goes out, I can run to the store and get a new one for $3. Or I can dig through my records, try and find the packaging for the bulb, see what the warranty is on it, contact the manufacturer, wait for a replacement. I've already spent more than $3 of my time doing paperwork before the dead CFL is out the door.
No, if this is going to work it's got to be easy. Put a chip in the bulb that keeps track of the hours it has run. If it goes out before the warrantied number of hours, you can take it to ANY retailer of CFLs for a free replacement.
Anything harder than the above solution will simply be too complex for people to manage.
Sure, but I don't have the source code so I can't do that.