I don't think that's how the settlement offers work. If you get a settlement offer, and ignore it, then they have to sue you to get the money. Sending a letter isn't free money. People still have to agree to pay. A defendant doesn't sue the plaintiff; that's not how it works; that's the opposite of how it works.
It's not like there is no difference. The difference is intent, which is germane in criminal prosecution: Cheney's intent was to out a spy for the purposes of domestic politics; this guy's intent was to expose crimes being waged by the government. Surely you can see that difference.
Whether or not that difference makes this guy innocent, the courts will have to decide.
Cheney is an admitted war criminal (he admitted authorizing torture) and belongs in a prison in Geneva. An international court should decide whether he is executed, but I don't actually think international courts do executions anymore. Life in prison seems most appropriate to me.
Rove is not a war criminal, he is a traitor (he purposely outed state secrets), who should be prosecuted under a3s3 of the Constitution. At the very least least he should be convicted of treason and threatened with execution, but perhaps not sentenced to it. A decade in jail seems more appropriate to me.
First of all, you wouldn't go to jail because this wasn't criminal copyright prosecution. This was a tort.
Second of all, if the judge HAD allowed discovery, then you would have been very inconvenienced, and then the discovery process would uncover that your friend downloaded the file. So you still wouldn't have paid a fine. But you would have been inconvenienced, and you probably would have paid a lawyer, and lost your computer for a while, and maybe a bunch of other stress.
This is a good decision based on the law, and also because it will save innocent people all that stress.
You just compared the judgement of a tort to the prosecution of crimes. Since you did that, I have to assume that you don't understand the difference between torts and crimes, or else you don't understand why that difference makes all the difference. I encourage you to educate yourself about the laws under which you live, because it's really important and might save you a lot of trouble someday. If you just simply are not willing to educate yourself, then at least try to realize that your current understanding of the law is very lacking, so you shouldn't make any conclusions based on it; before you make any big decisions, learn what you need to know. Good luck.
To be fair, they aren't fascists, they are contrarians. They take absurd positions because they enjoy defending the indefensible. It's the same reason Slashdot is full of libertarians.
So, who was trying to injure, if not murder, again?
The answer is still Zimmerman. Zimmerman hunted down an unarmed child -- that fact is not in question. The child then apparently attempted to save his own life from the murderer (this is called "self defense"), but did not succeed. The murderer succeeded in murdering the victim. Yes, sometimes rape victims scratch rapists; yes, sometimes murder victims put up a fight. I don't know of any jurisdiction where a criminal assumes the right of self defense when the crime victim fights back. That would be an affront to justice, which is why this situation is an affront to justice.
Consider pirating the content. It doesn't cost anything and comes with none of those restrictions. I know, you tried to do the "right" thing, you went out of your way to try to give your money to the people who drone on and on about needing the money -- but when you did, they turned you down and said they didn't want your money. I don't know what they are thinking, but it's pretty darn clear they don't want your money, so stop trying so hard. Just go get what you want (content with no hassle) and if the authorized people ever want your money, then they'll give you what you want in exchange for it. Good luck.
Indeed. There was self defense in this case -- it was Martin, fighting for his life against an armed lunatic searching for an excuse to murder a perceived trespasser.
I haven't personally investigated his ancestry, but reporting I've seen has Zimmerman as part white, part Latino, part black, with the Latino part not only the plurality, but the personal identification. I'm willing to completely ignore the actual ancestry and go strictly with personal identification -- do you know how George identifies?
Also, let's be clear about this, the Latino community probably has a worse relationship with the black community than even the white community does. So it's not like George being Latino would make the prejudice claim less tenable.
Actually nobody assumed he was a child. People know he was a child, because he meets the definition of a child in our society. There is no assuming going on. He was born at a point in time which, at this point in time, makes him a child.
Yes, the picture released of him was a cute smiling pic. It is quite possible that he didn't look so cute when Zimmerman murdered him.
I agree. This is an inexcusable instance of media bias, a plain example of stripping context out of a story for spin.
Zimmerman is still a murderer, though. You don't get to claim self defense when you started the fight. If you hunt down and kill an unarmed child, you can expect to be tried for murder.
The presence of a Java icon doesn't make programmers exasperated, it makes us thankful to have a tool which manages memory for us. Memory management is hard, and this tool makes it easier. All programming languages are tools, tools which do some things better than others, and memory management is one of the most important features of a programming language as a tool.
Java definitely isn't dying. I thought it was over the hump about five years ago, and started using other languages. Since then, Android dev has exploded, and now I spend my time using Cassandra database (Java) and Storm topology runner (Java).
In the past we used Java to make web pages a little more interesting. Today, web pages can do enough with HTML and JavaScript, so we don't need Java applets anymore -- and good riddance, at that. But that hardly means Java is dying. It isn't. Not at all.
I have a general understanding of how the UK government works, but I dismiss the suggestion that the queen is a 'figurehead only'. "Only"? You have a queen as a figurehead! That is totally embarrassing! You have a queen! It makes me laugh to just say it. Having a queen as a figurehead makes the UK a monarchy (similar with a house of Lords, plutocracy or something like that). Having the Church of England as an official state church makes the UK a theocracy. As I acknowledged, it's swell that the UK keeps those two embarrassments out of the limelight, but they are still there, in the wings, infrequently doing things that make the country look like it is stuck in the middle ages.
Yep, American religion is incredibly embarrassing. I agree with that. It doesn't make us a theocracy, but it does make us backwards and silly. The UK seems to have so much of its ship in order, it's baffling that they don't mop up the rest of the matter by eliminating the monarchy and the House of Lords and the Church of England (as an official state church). What I'm saying is that I find it surprising that the country which basically gave the world democracy, did so as a monarchy. (Equally, I find it surprising that America, the country which basically gave the world secularism, did so as a country full of religious bigots.)
Yes, all American are familiar with common law. Thank you for that! It was a good basis for our legal system, and the legal systems of the whole modern world. Still, I've always wondered why Britons never bothered to write down that super-duper unwritten constitution of theirs. It seems like it would be a lot more useful and clear. Personally I'm not willing to give UK credit for having a constitution because, well, they don't have one.
I'm really curious how anyone could not have a problem with a monarchy. It is offensive as a symbol, it is offensive that it even exists. The only way a monarchy could change to meet modern times is to stop existing. The notion of birthright royalty is absurd and anachronistic and counter to the foundational idea that men are born legally equal.
Presidents are "worshiped" because they do the hardest thing that can possibly be done in society, which is to climb over everyone else to the nation's top seat. That's incredibly difficult and generally people get respect when they do incredibly difficult things. That is to say, unlike the Queen, Presidents earn it.
I must disagree. The UK exactly perfectly fits the dictionary definition of "theocracy": "Government under the control of a Church or state-sponsored religion.". The head of state of the UK is the monarch, who is the head of the Church of England, which is the official state church. Yes of course I know that it's not a theocracy like Iran, but there is no doubt that the UK is a theocratic monarchy.
Well there is an important difference, which is that the United States is at least nominally a constitutional republic, whereas the UK is a theocratic monarchy. Theocratic monarchies aren't exactly known for tolerance and freedom, although the UK does a better job with their theocratic monarchy than most other theocratic monarchies. The United States, for all its failings, is nowhere near a totalitarian society. It's okay to make such a comparison in jest, just so long as everyone knows you are joking.
I think you are very reasonable and make good arguments. Likewise, I think I am very reasonable and make good arguments. I'm not swayed by your arguments, but neither am I offended by them. I would be fine with changing policy to allow ex felons to vote, but I prefer the status quo (as it is in most states).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that's how the settlement offers work. If you get a settlement offer, and ignore it, then they have to sue you to get the money. Sending a letter isn't free money. People still have to agree to pay. A defendant doesn't sue the plaintiff; that's not how it works; that's the opposite of how it works.
It's not like there is no difference. The difference is intent, which is germane in criminal prosecution: Cheney's intent was to out a spy for the purposes of domestic politics; this guy's intent was to expose crimes being waged by the government. Surely you can see that difference.
Whether or not that difference makes this guy innocent, the courts will have to decide.
Cheney is an admitted war criminal (he admitted authorizing torture) and belongs in a prison in Geneva. An international court should decide whether he is executed, but I don't actually think international courts do executions anymore. Life in prison seems most appropriate to me.
Rove is not a war criminal, he is a traitor (he purposely outed state secrets), who should be prosecuted under a3s3 of the Constitution. At the very least least he should be convicted of treason and threatened with execution, but perhaps not sentenced to it. A decade in jail seems more appropriate to me.
First of all, you wouldn't go to jail because this wasn't criminal copyright prosecution. This was a tort.
Second of all, if the judge HAD allowed discovery, then you would have been very inconvenienced, and then the discovery process would uncover that your friend downloaded the file. So you still wouldn't have paid a fine. But you would have been inconvenienced, and you probably would have paid a lawyer, and lost your computer for a while, and maybe a bunch of other stress.
This is a good decision based on the law, and also because it will save innocent people all that stress.
You just compared the judgement of a tort to the prosecution of crimes. Since you did that, I have to assume that you don't understand the difference between torts and crimes, or else you don't understand why that difference makes all the difference. I encourage you to educate yourself about the laws under which you live, because it's really important and might save you a lot of trouble someday. If you just simply are not willing to educate yourself, then at least try to realize that your current understanding of the law is very lacking, so you shouldn't make any conclusions based on it; before you make any big decisions, learn what you need to know. Good luck.
Smackdown, laid. Thank you for the defense, anonymous friend!
To be fair, they aren't fascists, they are contrarians. They take absurd positions because they enjoy defending the indefensible. It's the same reason Slashdot is full of libertarians.
So, who was trying to injure, if not murder, again?
The answer is still Zimmerman. Zimmerman hunted down an unarmed child -- that fact is not in question. The child then apparently attempted to save his own life from the murderer (this is called "self defense"), but did not succeed. The murderer succeeded in murdering the victim. Yes, sometimes rape victims scratch rapists; yes, sometimes murder victims put up a fight. I don't know of any jurisdiction where a criminal assumes the right of self defense when the crime victim fights back. That would be an affront to justice, which is why this situation is an affront to justice.
I pay $36 a month for my internet, from a cable company, with no phone or cable service bundled, in Wisconsin.
Consider pirating the content. It doesn't cost anything and comes with none of those restrictions. I know, you tried to do the "right" thing, you went out of your way to try to give your money to the people who drone on and on about needing the money -- but when you did, they turned you down and said they didn't want your money. I don't know what they are thinking, but it's pretty darn clear they don't want your money, so stop trying so hard. Just go get what you want (content with no hassle) and if the authorized people ever want your money, then they'll give you what you want in exchange for it. Good luck.
I love how you put TD; DR less than halfway through your post.
Indeed. There was self defense in this case -- it was Martin, fighting for his life against an armed lunatic searching for an excuse to murder a perceived trespasser.
I haven't personally investigated his ancestry, but reporting I've seen has Zimmerman as part white, part Latino, part black, with the Latino part not only the plurality, but the personal identification. I'm willing to completely ignore the actual ancestry and go strictly with personal identification -- do you know how George identifies?
Also, let's be clear about this, the Latino community probably has a worse relationship with the black community than even the white community does. So it's not like George being Latino would make the prejudice claim less tenable.
Actually nobody assumed he was a child. People know he was a child, because he meets the definition of a child in our society. There is no assuming going on. He was born at a point in time which, at this point in time, makes him a child.
Yes, the picture released of him was a cute smiling pic. It is quite possible that he didn't look so cute when Zimmerman murdered him.
I think you have improperly equated "news for nerds" with "nerdy news".
I'm a nerd. This interests me. Therefore this is news for nerds. Get off your high horse.
I agree. This is an inexcusable instance of media bias, a plain example of stripping context out of a story for spin.
Zimmerman is still a murderer, though. You don't get to claim self defense when you started the fight. If you hunt down and kill an unarmed child, you can expect to be tried for murder.
The presence of a Java icon doesn't make programmers exasperated, it makes us thankful to have a tool which manages memory for us. Memory management is hard, and this tool makes it easier. All programming languages are tools, tools which do some things better than others, and memory management is one of the most important features of a programming language as a tool.
Java definitely isn't dying. I thought it was over the hump about five years ago, and started using other languages. Since then, Android dev has exploded, and now I spend my time using Cassandra database (Java) and Storm topology runner (Java).
In the past we used Java to make web pages a little more interesting. Today, web pages can do enough with HTML and JavaScript, so we don't need Java applets anymore -- and good riddance, at that. But that hardly means Java is dying. It isn't. Not at all.
I have a general understanding of how the UK government works, but I dismiss the suggestion that the queen is a 'figurehead only'. "Only"? You have a queen as a figurehead! That is totally embarrassing! You have a queen! It makes me laugh to just say it. Having a queen as a figurehead makes the UK a monarchy (similar with a house of Lords, plutocracy or something like that). Having the Church of England as an official state church makes the UK a theocracy. As I acknowledged, it's swell that the UK keeps those two embarrassments out of the limelight, but they are still there, in the wings, infrequently doing things that make the country look like it is stuck in the middle ages.
Yep, American religion is incredibly embarrassing. I agree with that. It doesn't make us a theocracy, but it does make us backwards and silly. The UK seems to have so much of its ship in order, it's baffling that they don't mop up the rest of the matter by eliminating the monarchy and the House of Lords and the Church of England (as an official state church). What I'm saying is that I find it surprising that the country which basically gave the world democracy, did so as a monarchy. (Equally, I find it surprising that America, the country which basically gave the world secularism, did so as a country full of religious bigots.)
Yes, all American are familiar with common law. Thank you for that! It was a good basis for our legal system, and the legal systems of the whole modern world. Still, I've always wondered why Britons never bothered to write down that super-duper unwritten constitution of theirs. It seems like it would be a lot more useful and clear. Personally I'm not willing to give UK credit for having a constitution because, well, they don't have one.
I'm really curious how anyone could not have a problem with a monarchy. It is offensive as a symbol, it is offensive that it even exists. The only way a monarchy could change to meet modern times is to stop existing. The notion of birthright royalty is absurd and anachronistic and counter to the foundational idea that men are born legally equal.
Presidents are "worshiped" because they do the hardest thing that can possibly be done in society, which is to climb over everyone else to the nation's top seat. That's incredibly difficult and generally people get respect when they do incredibly difficult things. That is to say, unlike the Queen, Presidents earn it.
I must disagree. The UK exactly perfectly fits the dictionary definition of "theocracy": "Government under the control of a Church or state-sponsored religion.". The head of state of the UK is the monarch, who is the head of the Church of England, which is the official state church. Yes of course I know that it's not a theocracy like Iran, but there is no doubt that the UK is a theocratic monarchy.
Well there is an important difference, which is that the United States is at least nominally a constitutional republic, whereas the UK is a theocratic monarchy. Theocratic monarchies aren't exactly known for tolerance and freedom, although the UK does a better job with their theocratic monarchy than most other theocratic monarchies. The United States, for all its failings, is nowhere near a totalitarian society. It's okay to make such a comparison in jest, just so long as everyone knows you are joking.
I think you are very reasonable and make good arguments. Likewise, I think I am very reasonable and make good arguments. I'm not swayed by your arguments, but neither am I offended by them. I would be fine with changing policy to allow ex felons to vote, but I prefer the status quo (as it is in most states).