For example, it's really hard getting sales people to keep corporate contact information up-to-date once they've started keeping their contact info in Notes. It's easy for them, they can replicate to their desktop and access the info while they're on the road. It's free form, so they can add comments. Great for sales-people. Sucks for billing when the client has moved and the sales guy who knows about it can't be bothered to update the "real" client database.
Our clients find it really easy. An example (with names changed to protect innocent!): An international company has our bespoke CRM system built in Notes deployed in 25 countries over all 6 continents. In each the salesman can update the company name/address on his local replica on his local laptop. When he replicates the database the change gets pushed up on to the server. Each night the nightly integration with their backend AS/400 pushes the change back to their ERP system, where the billing is done.
In your example your problem was not that the salesmen had a separate clients database. It was having a clients database the salesmen couldn't use the way they needed to, so they had to build another one in Notes.
Notes is great a solving business problems in a quick and cost-efficient manner. There is nothing like the wow factor of talking to a user in the morning, and showing him a fairly functional prototype in the afternoon.
Don't get me wrong - Notes/Domino sucks at many things, but as long as you don't ever treat it like a relational database things work fine.
To truly get the power of Notes, you have to integrate it with the core systems. Or (where it is sensible) run your core systems on Notes.
In the unlikely event that someone really wants to know how Notes replication works, try this article on Notes.net.
Replication is complicated to get right. Notes manages because it is not relational and does not try to be. Because Notes is based on documents, all the information relating to the document is stored in one place, and if a conflict occurs in replication it is relatively simple to deal with it (either by merging the two conflicting documents, or by creating a new documenty and flagging it visibly as a conflict).
I have no great experience with relational dbs, but the little I know suggests that this would be a whole lot more difficult using Oracle, MySQL, etc. The equivalent of a document would be stores in n different tables, leading to a possible n different replication conflicts (where n varies depending on the application and database design.
I'd be interested to know why xcaster thinks Notes is 'horrible software'. I've been using/developing Notes and Domino applications for years now, and I think it is pretty nice. You can develop apps quickly and efficiently, you can replicate, apps will work via a Notes client, or over the web (as long as they are written appropriately). Problems tend to occur when you use Notes to do things which it is not appropriate for (e.g. anything that doesn't fit in the document oriented paradigm).
I don't disagree with anything you say here, but I believe we are getting into the realms of pedantry. You pick one definition for the words, I pick another. (I deliberately picked the definitions that particularly apply to computer science, rather than the more generalised definitions you use).
I contend that the difference is the intent of the encoding/encryption used. I prefer to think that encryption is intended to prevent unauthorised access, whereas encoding may be used for other purposes (e.g. making files smaller).
Not all encoded information is encrypted. To pick a bad example, HTML could be described as an encoding, but I have difficulty trying to see it as encryption as the information within it is not 'hidden'. However, all encryption is by definition encoded.
Technically SDMI should be described as an access control mechanism rather than an encoding or encryption scheme, since it does not scramble the data (it merely corrupts it), neither is it a standard format (the watermark is encoded with a standard format, along with the sound it is overlayed on).
encode: To format (electronic data) according to a standard format.
encrypt: To scramble access codes to (computerized information) so as to prevent unauthorized access.
mp3s are a standard format (encoded). SDMI tries to prevent unauthorised access (encrypted).
disclaimer:
I live in the UK, and can only comment on the news programmes I have seen here. What I say may or may not be relevant in the US.
I hate the local news here. Why should I care that someone had twins today? Or that a new shop opened in some village I'm not likely to ever visit? It might be news (or maybe not), but to me it is simply not interesting. This holds for both newspapers and TV - 10% interesting news and 90% filler.
National news is at least more interesting, but it is mostly 'spin-doctored' so much that it is difficult to extract actual facts from it. Lots of political posturing from someone, someone elses opinion on something else, lots of war, famine and disease. These are not my favourite things to here about.
The net is different - I can find the things that interest me, take as long as I want over it, get the news virtually as it happens (sometimes) and easily skip the spin, hype and garbage. There is a load of crap on the net, but I simply choose not to look at that. Given the limited number of channels I get I find it much harder to do that with TV.
Thus spake sbryant:
[snip stats showing IE and NN are used most]
This is what people are using. Management look at these figures and then tell me the features must work in NS4.x and IE4.x and 5.x. That covers the vast majority of users; I would imagine that they would probably consider developing/testing for other versions a waste of resources.
We all know that the most used browsers are IE4+ and NN4+. Management tell me that these are our target browsers as well. That doesn't mean I have to use all the advanced features of these browsers. It also doesn't mean that I cannot deal gracefully with other browsers.
Where possible I give alternatives to using javascript. (Due to security holes in IE, a significant minority of people have turned javascript off in IE - this completely stuffs the tesco site). I try not to use features which are not standard across every browser.
Basically, if I am not specifically instructed otherwise I try to make my applications work in anything, including lynx, IE, NN, and Mozilla (although I still can't get Mozilla to work using SSL, dammit). I admit that I do not thoroughly test in every browser, though (and not at all in the case of Opera, since I don't have access to a copy).
I do know that public opinion has forced people to change the way they do things in the past though. The example that springs to mind is 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire'. As I'm sure you know, the way the contestants get selected is by ringing a (premium rate) phone number and answering a multiple choice question. The thing was that the call cut off if you didn't answer soon enough for the machine on the other end, which caused problems for deaf people who used the minicom service (which uses an operator to translate the spoken word to written word via some clever machine). Some pressure was applied, (via the media) and I believe the service was changed to make it accessible to everyone.
I consider a site that requires a useragent, and also requires you to use IE or NN to be broken.
If they have put in so much effort that they have customised the site for IE and NN, then they should put a tiny bit more effort in and deal with other browsers nicely, even if the site does lose a little bit of functionality. In most cases the bits that change according to which browser you are using have no effect on the functionality at all - those bits are generally the icing on the cake.
Tesco have a badly written site. However, I don't see why giving out your useragent is a problem. So they then know you are using MSIE 2.0 or something - so what? Hardly identifying information is it? If anything a custom useragent is far more identifying, and therefore giving out a fake useragent string means you could be intentionally giving away more privacy.
running an IRC server isn't something that Joe User is going to be doing
I don't know about that. A few years ago most people wouldn't have imagined burning their own CDs either. Now a CD (re)writer is almost standard. Admittedly, at the moment Joe User probably won't want to be running his own irc server, but give it a little time and the software will evolve to be more user friendly. All it needs is some incentive for someone to write some easier to install/use/maintain software of some description. (Maybe a nice GUI drag and drop front end to Windows file sharing even).
I believe that you are entirely correct in what you say, but that doesn't make any difference at all still. Whether the architect builds an ugly concrete and steel monstrosity, or a beautiful building which people will visit and marvel at for centuries, it is still expression. Whether it is a nice expression, or a depressing, ugly expression is beside the point.
You mentioned the 'eye of the beholder'. I think this might be the key here - it doesn't matter what the creator (be they an architect, programmer or whatever) thinks they are. If you, or someone else, can look at an object and think, "That is beautiful/nice/boring/dull/ugly", then it is probably expressing something.
I don't see how having source code available can stop the object code being speech. That simply makes no sense to me at all. How can something stop being speech because some other thing is made available?
You seem to be reading 'preferred form for making modifications' as 'most likely to be accepted in the courts as speech'. While I might not disagree with that, it still doesn't invalidate the other forms of expression that are available, including object code.
I would refer you to David Touretskys declaration here .
I summarised it (probably quite badly) fruther up this page.
I ask if you consider architecture to be an art, or a science? After all, it is just a design for a building governed by the laws of gravity, etc.
As with almost anything, there are many ways to write a computer program - some are merely functional, other are graceful and, I would say, expressive.
You could look at this declaration by Touretsky. Personally I think this is the most powerful argument in the entire case.
To paraphrase, the question he asks is "Where do you draw the line?"
Is some English text describing an algorithm protected under the 1st amendment? What about the same text, but annotated in some well defined programming language for which there is no compiler? What if it was annotated with C code? The C code all by itself (ready to be compiled)? Object code? Binary executables? At what point is it no longer 'speech'?
You seem to be implying it is a good thing. Why do you think that?
If you can give me a good argument for pr0n shops in general to be shut down I'll agree with you, until then I see no reason to think that pr0n shops are inherantly bad.
There is a difference between security of data, and privacy. If I use https (or whatever secure protocol) the information that is being transmitted may be secure (or maybe not if a governmental security agency is interested in it), but why should the ISP log where I connected to, and for how long, and how often? I've paid for their services - specifically the ability to connect to the internet. Unless I specifically agree to them logging every transaction I make I do not see why they should.
(I realise that back in the real world that they do log things - without such logs many net criminals could not ever be caught. I also realise that with some ISPs, when you sign up you do agree to allow them to log stuff.)
Caffeine does not cause people to go rob stores/banks/innocents so they can get cash for their next fix. Drugs do. When was the last time you saw someone jumped in the street because the mugger needed money for a Coke?
Talk about generalisation!
What are 'Drugs'? Heroin, crack cocaine? Speed? Mushrooms? Alcohol? Cannabis? Caffeine? Penacillin? LSD? Ecstasy?
You simply can't group all drugs (legal, or otherwise) into a single group like that and say "Drugs cause crime". It simply doesn't work like that.
I don't know of, and have never heard of, anyone mugging someone so they could get more cannabis, or LSD, or ecstasy. Alcohol on the other hand...
There is something to what you say. Also, when people write 'workalikes', you can end up in a worse position than simply using a piece of 'restricted' software. Just imagine ending up with 5 different versions of SSH, each just everyso slightly incompatible with all the others. In this situation many people are just not going to bother with it, and continue using the old, insecure telnet. Thankfully the open source community somehow seems to manage to support each other, rather than compete. However, in the life of every piece of software where it makes more sense to redevelop than maintain it. This doesn't just apply to spagetti code - unacceptable licenses can (and in this case, have) cause this to happen.
I've never actually used Napster (or Gnutella, etc), and ideologically I have always been kind of neutral about it. (It does promote piracy whatever anyone says, so it is bad, but corporations have been stomping all over consumers, so it is good).
Now I have to wonder whether Napster, etc. are actually good in any way at all. As the article says, people will always buy cds, and the author obviously believes this is true more for big label bands than for the smaller unsigned bands. If this is the case then I have to come down against Napster.
At the same time, I believe that some people will always buy cds of the bands they like, and some won't. It doesn't matter what the band is, it depends on the person.
When it somes down to it I suspect that it comes down to availability. I can buy the Backstreet Boys in any record store, but if I can only buy it on MP3.com I am less likely to bother.
So am I in favour of Napster? I still don't know - in fact I'm less sure than I was. This has made me decide that if I happen upon a band I like, then I will buy their CD.
It sounds like something I'd like to try (but probably only the once:)
One question though - how do you stop? The BBC article says the pistons are triggered by the foot hitting the ground, so presumably once you have started you have to wait until the things run out of fuel.
(This brings up another interesting question: What happens if your left foot runs out of fuel before your right foot? This would probably make for some painful accidents).
I can almost guarantee you that the farmhand has had a more moral upbringing and goes to Church more than the programmer.
On what do you base this assumption, and what difference does it make anyway? Why do you think exposure to technology makes people less moral? Why do you think going to church makes someone more moral?
You don't go far enough on this. It should be mandatory to ask whether this juror has ever illegally downloaded any copyrighted materials, or visited any pornographic websites.
I agree that illegally downloading copyrighted materials is wrong. However, if someone downloaded an illegal mp3 five years ago, when they were still growing up, how does this make them unsuitable for jury duty?
As for visiting pornographic websites - so what? The only time this might be relevant is in a sex related case, and even then I find it to be a weak argument. Extending this only slightly further than you already have, why not disqualify everyone who has ever seen some bare breasts on late night cable tv?
Any questions about the veracity of the juror's answers should be taken care of by an inspection of his home computer.
So, jury duty would also include having your home, and your privacy, violated by lawyers? Personally I find this completely unacceptable.
While the Internet can be used for good, it has far more potential to taint the minds of the public than any other invention since the dawn of mankind, and we should not hesitate to keep our justice system (justice system) free of such influences.
Please substantiate this remark. You could replace the word 'Internet' in this sentence with virtually anything, and someone proably believes it. Try 'alcohol', 'tobacco', 'drugs', 'chocolate', 'religion', 'politics', 'communism', 'capitalism', etc.
a single juror gaining knowledge of the crime ahead of time could taint the trial
I agree completely. But why blame the internet. Newspapers, television, and radio can all be blamed for this as well.
Just as a single amoral or immoral juror could. These need to be screened for too.
How would you suggest we do this, without violating the potential jurors' rights?
I'm from the UK, and since you are not I hope you'll take my word on this:
The vast majority of police officers in the UK do not routinely carry guns. (I _believe_ that most cops are not even allowed to carry guns, as they haven't been trained for this). There are some circumstances where guns are carried, e.g. Heathrow Airport police always carry some form of firearm.
If I get time later, I'll see what figures I can dig up about crimerates.
Don't they realise that people will simply watch the films they want anyway? It is simple to get hold of almost anything you want from the web. You can download hardcore pornography from home, yet kids are told they can't watch South Park!
Something is seriously wrong with their view of the world. I know they are trying to follow public opinion, but it seems that the poicy makers don't even know what public opinion is at the moment. I know there was a knee jerk reaction, but that only lasted a period of days, not months.
Slashdot Mirror
MIT made a choice to have an open wifi network, for use by guests. It wasn't open due to incompetence or ineptitude.
Sounds like you never really understood Notes.
For example, it's really hard getting sales people to keep corporate contact information up-to-date once they've started keeping their contact info in Notes. It's easy for them, they can replicate to their desktop and access the info while they're on the road. It's free form, so they can add comments. Great for sales-people. Sucks for billing when the client has moved and the sales guy who knows about it can't be bothered to update the "real" client database.
Our clients find it really easy. An example (with names changed to protect innocent!):
An international company has our bespoke CRM system built in Notes deployed in 25 countries over all 6 continents. In each the salesman can update the company name/address on his local replica on his local laptop. When he replicates the database the change gets pushed up on to the server. Each night the nightly integration with their backend AS/400 pushes the change back to their ERP system, where the billing is done.
In your example your problem was not that the salesmen had a separate clients database. It was having a clients database the salesmen couldn't use the way they needed to, so they had to build another one in Notes.
Notes is great a solving business problems in a quick and cost-efficient manner. There is nothing like the wow factor of talking to a user in the morning, and showing him a fairly functional prototype in the afternoon.
Don't get me wrong - Notes/Domino sucks at many things, but as long as you don't ever treat it like a relational database things work fine.
To truly get the power of Notes, you have to integrate it with the core systems. Or (where it is sensible) run your core systems on Notes.
In the unlikely event that someone really wants to know how Notes replication works, try this article on Notes.net.
Replication is complicated to get right. Notes manages because it is not relational and does not try to be. Because Notes is based on documents, all the information relating to the document is stored in one place, and if a conflict occurs in replication it is relatively simple to deal with it (either by merging the two conflicting documents, or by creating a new documenty and flagging it visibly as a conflict).
I have no great experience with relational dbs, but the little I know suggests that this would be a whole lot more difficult using Oracle, MySQL, etc. The equivalent of a document would be stores in n different tables, leading to a possible n different replication conflicts (where n varies depending on the application and database design.
I'd be interested to know why xcaster thinks Notes is 'horrible software'. I've been using/developing Notes and Domino applications for years now, and I think it is pretty nice. You can develop apps quickly and efficiently, you can replicate, apps will work via a Notes client, or over the web (as long as they are written appropriately). Problems tend to occur when you use Notes to do things which it is not appropriate for (e.g. anything that doesn't fit in the document oriented paradigm).
I don't disagree with anything you say here, but I believe we are getting into the realms of pedantry. You pick one definition for the words, I pick another. (I deliberately picked the definitions that particularly apply to computer science, rather than the more generalised definitions you use).
I contend that the difference is the intent of the encoding/encryption used. I prefer to think that encryption is intended to prevent unauthorised access, whereas encoding may be used for other purposes (e.g. making files smaller).
Not all encoded information is encrypted. To pick a bad example, HTML could be described as an encoding, but I have difficulty trying to see it as encryption as the information within it is not 'hidden'. However, all encryption is by definition encoded.
Technically SDMI should be described as an access control mechanism rather than an encoding or encryption scheme, since it does not scramble the data (it merely corrupts it), neither is it a standard format (the watermark is encoded with a standard format, along with the sound it is overlayed on).
There is a difference between encoding something and encrypting it.
encode: To format (electronic data) according to a standard format.
encrypt: To scramble access codes to (computerized information) so as to prevent unauthorized access.
mp3s are a standard format (encoded). SDMI tries to prevent unauthorised access (encrypted).
Me too!
disclaimer:
I live in the UK, and can only comment on the news programmes I have seen here. What I say may or may not be relevant in the US.
I hate the local news here. Why should I care that someone had twins today? Or that a new shop opened in some village I'm not likely to ever visit? It might be news (or maybe not), but to me it is simply not interesting. This holds for both newspapers and TV - 10% interesting news and 90% filler.
National news is at least more interesting, but it is mostly 'spin-doctored' so much that it is difficult to extract actual facts from it. Lots of political posturing from someone, someone elses opinion on something else, lots of war, famine and disease. These are not my favourite things to here about.
The net is different - I can find the things that interest me, take as long as I want over it, get the news virtually as it happens (sometimes) and easily skip the spin, hype and garbage. There is a load of crap on the net, but I simply choose not to look at that. Given the limited number of channels I get I find it much harder to do that with TV.
Thus spake sbryant:
[snip stats showing IE and NN are used most]
This is what people are using. Management look at these figures and then tell me the features must work in NS4.x and IE4.x and 5.x. That covers the vast majority of users; I would imagine that they would probably consider developing/testing for other versions a waste of resources.
We all know that the most used browsers are IE4+ and NN4+. Management tell me that these are our target browsers as well. That doesn't mean I have to use all the advanced features of these browsers. It also doesn't mean that I cannot deal gracefully with other browsers.
Where possible I give alternatives to using javascript. (Due to security holes in IE, a significant minority of people have turned javascript off in IE - this completely stuffs the tesco site). I try not to use features which are not standard across every browser.
Basically, if I am not specifically instructed otherwise I try to make my applications work in anything, including lynx, IE, NN, and Mozilla (although I still can't get Mozilla to work using SSL, dammit). I admit that I do not thoroughly test in every browser, though (and not at all in the case of Opera, since I don't have access to a copy).
I'm not sure if there are laws like that.
I do know that public opinion has forced people to change the way they do things in the past though. The example that springs to mind is 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire'. As I'm sure you know, the way the contestants get selected is by ringing a (premium rate) phone number and answering a multiple choice question. The thing was that the call cut off if you didn't answer soon enough for the machine on the other end, which caused problems for deaf people who used the minicom service (which uses an operator to translate the spoken word to written word via some clever machine). Some pressure was applied, (via the media) and I believe the service was changed to make it accessible to everyone.
Absolutely.
I consider a site that requires a useragent, and also requires you to use IE or NN to be broken.
If they have put in so much effort that they have customised the site for IE and NN, then they should put a tiny bit more effort in and deal with other browsers nicely, even if the site does lose a little bit of functionality. In most cases the bits that change according to which browser you are using have no effect on the functionality at all - those bits are generally the icing on the cake.
Tesco have a badly written site. However, I don't see why giving out your useragent is a problem. So they then know you are using MSIE 2.0 or something - so what? Hardly identifying information is it? If anything a custom useragent is far more identifying, and therefore giving out a fake useragent string means you could be intentionally giving away more privacy.
running an IRC server isn't something that Joe User is going to be doing
I don't know about that. A few years ago most people wouldn't have imagined burning their own CDs either. Now a CD (re)writer is almost standard. Admittedly, at the moment Joe User probably won't want to be running his own irc server, but give it a little time and the software will evolve to be more user friendly. All it needs is some incentive for someone to write some easier to install/use/maintain software of some description. (Maybe a nice GUI drag and drop front end to Windows file sharing even).
I believe that you are entirely correct in what you say, but that doesn't make any difference at all still. Whether the architect builds an ugly concrete and steel monstrosity, or a beautiful building which people will visit and marvel at for centuries, it is still expression. Whether it is a nice expression, or a depressing, ugly expression is beside the point.
You mentioned the 'eye of the beholder'. I think this might be the key here - it doesn't matter what the creator (be they an architect, programmer or whatever) thinks they are. If you, or someone else, can look at an object and think, "That is beautiful/nice/boring/dull/ugly", then it is probably expressing something.
I don't see how having source code available can stop the object code being speech. That simply makes no sense to me at all. How can something stop being speech because some other thing is made available?
You seem to be reading 'preferred form for making modifications' as 'most likely to be accepted in the courts as speech'. While I might not disagree with that, it still doesn't invalidate the other forms of expression that are available, including object code.
I would refer you to David Touretskys declaration here .
I summarised it (probably quite badly) fruther up this page.
I ask if you consider architecture to be an art, or a science? After all, it is just a design for a building governed by the laws of gravity, etc.
As with almost anything, there are many ways to write a computer program - some are merely functional, other are graceful and, I would say, expressive.
You could look at this declaration by Touretsky. Personally I think this is the most powerful argument in the entire case.
To paraphrase, the question he asks is "Where do you draw the line?"
Is some English text describing an algorithm protected under the 1st amendment?
What about the same text, but annotated in some well defined programming language for which there is no compiler?
What if it was annotated with C code?
The C code all by itself (ready to be compiled)?
Object code?
Binary executables?
At what point is it no longer 'speech'?
Griff
Ah, fair enough then. I can understand that, though I think there is a place for both free internet pr0n and a real life sex shop.
And this is a bad thing?
You seem to be implying it is a good thing. Why do you think that?
If you can give me a good argument for pr0n shops in general to be shut down I'll agree with you, until then I see no reason to think that pr0n shops are inherantly bad.
Playing devils advocate:
There is a difference between security of data, and privacy. If I use https (or whatever secure protocol) the information that is being transmitted may be secure (or maybe not if a governmental security agency is interested in it), but why should the ISP log where I connected to, and for how long, and how often? I've paid for their services - specifically the ability to connect to the internet. Unless I specifically agree to them logging every transaction I make I do not see why they should.
(I realise that back in the real world that they do log things - without such logs many net criminals could not ever be caught. I also realise that with some ISPs, when you sign up you do agree to allow them to log stuff.)
Caffeine does not cause people to go rob stores/banks/innocents so they can get cash for their next fix. Drugs do. When was the last time you saw someone jumped in the street because the mugger needed money for a Coke?
Talk about generalisation!
What are 'Drugs'? Heroin, crack cocaine? Speed? Mushrooms? Alcohol? Cannabis? Caffeine? Penacillin? LSD? Ecstasy?
You simply can't group all drugs (legal, or otherwise) into a single group like that and say "Drugs cause crime". It simply doesn't work like that.
I don't know of, and have never heard of, anyone mugging someone so they could get more cannabis, or LSD, or ecstasy. Alcohol on the other hand...
There is something to what you say. Also, when people write 'workalikes', you can end up in a worse position than simply using a piece of 'restricted' software. Just imagine ending up with 5 different versions of SSH, each just everyso slightly incompatible with all the others. In this situation many people are just not going to bother with it, and continue using the old, insecure telnet. Thankfully the open source community somehow seems to manage to support each other, rather than compete. However, in the life of every piece of software where it makes more sense to redevelop than maintain it. This doesn't just apply to spagetti code - unacceptable licenses can (and in this case, have) cause this to happen.
I've never actually used Napster (or Gnutella, etc), and ideologically I have always been kind of neutral about it. (It does promote piracy whatever anyone says, so it is bad, but corporations have been stomping all over consumers, so it is good).
Now I have to wonder whether Napster, etc. are actually good in any way at all. As the article says, people will always buy cds, and the author obviously believes this is true more for big label bands than for the smaller unsigned bands. If this is the case then I have to come down against Napster.
At the same time, I believe that some people will always buy cds of the bands they like, and some won't. It doesn't matter what the band is, it depends on the person.
When it somes down to it I suspect that it comes down to availability. I can buy the Backstreet Boys in any record store, but if I can only buy it on MP3.com I am less likely to bother.
So am I in favour of Napster? I still don't know - in fact I'm less sure than I was. This has made me decide that if I happen upon a band I like, then I will buy their CD.
It sounds like something I'd like to try (but probably only the once :)
One question though - how do you stop? The BBC article says the pistons are triggered by the foot hitting the ground, so presumably once you have started you have to wait until the things run out of fuel.
(This brings up another interesting question: What happens if your left foot runs out of fuel before your right foot? This would probably make for some painful accidents).
I can almost guarantee you that the farmhand has had a more moral upbringing and goes to Church more than the programmer.
On what do you base this assumption, and what difference does it make anyway? Why do you think exposure to technology makes people less moral? Why do you think going to church makes someone more moral?
You don't go far enough on this. It should be mandatory to ask whether this juror has ever illegally downloaded any copyrighted materials, or visited any pornographic websites.
I agree that illegally downloading copyrighted materials is wrong. However, if someone downloaded an illegal mp3 five years ago, when they were still growing up, how does this make them unsuitable for jury duty?
As for visiting pornographic websites - so what? The only time this might be relevant is in a sex related case, and even then I find it to be a weak argument. Extending this only slightly further than you already have, why not disqualify everyone who has ever seen some bare breasts on late night cable tv?
Any questions about the veracity of the juror's answers should be taken care of by an inspection of his home computer.
So, jury duty would also include having your home, and your privacy, violated by lawyers? Personally I find this completely unacceptable.
While the Internet can be used for good, it has far more potential to taint the minds of the public than any other invention since the dawn of mankind, and we should not hesitate to keep our justice system (justice system) free of such influences.
Please substantiate this remark. You could replace the word 'Internet' in this sentence with virtually anything, and someone proably believes it. Try 'alcohol', 'tobacco', 'drugs', 'chocolate', 'religion', 'politics', 'communism', 'capitalism', etc.
a single juror gaining knowledge of the crime ahead of time could taint the trial
I agree completely. But why blame the internet. Newspapers, television, and radio can all be blamed for this as well.
Just as a single amoral or immoral juror could. These need to be screened for too.
How would you suggest we do this, without violating the potential jurors' rights?
I'm from the UK, and since you are not I hope you'll take my word on this:
The vast majority of police officers in the UK do not routinely carry guns. (I _believe_ that most cops are not even allowed to carry guns, as they haven't been trained for this). There are some circumstances where guns are carried, e.g. Heathrow Airport police always carry some form of firearm.
If I get time later, I'll see what figures I can dig up about crimerates.
Don't they realise that people will simply watch the films they want anyway? It is simple to get hold of almost anything you want from the web. You can download hardcore pornography from home, yet kids are told they can't watch South Park!
Something is seriously wrong with their view of the world. I know they are trying to follow public opinion, but it seems that the poicy makers don't even know what public opinion is at the moment. I know there was a knee jerk reaction, but that only lasted a period of days, not months.
Gareth