They corrupted the judgment system and left psychological scars on 5000 people, and they did it for profit.
Agreed. Maybe now you understand some of the many problems with the criminal justice system in the US, it's too easily circumvented and can lead to innocent people being imprisoned or executed.
They should be executed.
OK, guess you missed the point. Yes, these two are (allegedly) bad apples and need to be punished (if they are convicted). But you obviously missed the fact that there are 5000 people who were innocent of a crime and were imprisoned. It takes more than just two people to manage something like that, it takes an entire system built on a faulty premise in the first place. Killing these two losers won't solve that, and empowering the state to take their lives (or anyone's, for that matter) would only make things worse in the long run.
Really? And which libertarian/Austrian concepts led to our current predicament? The ones seeking a strong and stable money supply that can't be manipulated by politicians? The ones that would clamp down on fraud, both in the financial sector and in governance? Or the ones that would not prop up failed businesses at the expense of everyone else?
Even in absolute terms, there were casualties at one civil war battle, Antienam, than there have been in Iraq for the entire war, and Lincoln just kept right on rolling with the war.
You're seem to be describing people who think they are peppering their conversation with clever non sequiturs, when really they're just using catchphrases inappropriately. If that's your complaint, I'm on board with it. Those people should be shot.
Lighten up, Francis. Witty catchphrases and bon mots have always found a way to enter the language; some die out, some continue for centuries or even millennia. After all, there's nothing new under the sun, and a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Yes, some turn into tired cliches, and I agree with you that rickrolling needs to die. But if you disallowed people from using popculture catch phrases years after they were originally cool, you'd gut out about half of the language (and inadvertently cancel Family Guy).
I'm going off my experience with an acquaintance who went to Rio Hondo Police Academy in California. All you need prior to attending is a high school diploma or GED. Though I had the time reversed, it's actually 21 weeks, not 12. But still far short of seven years of college.
No, you misunderstand. They didn't gather false evidence, they gathered evidence insufficient to support the charges that were filed against you, so a jury found you "not guilty" of those charges. Nobody violated your 4th amendment rights in this scenario.
Wow, you really don't understand the 4th amendment, do you?
Probably cause means the cops think it's probably you've committed a crime. Then they go to a judge, who either agrees or disagrees. If the judge agrees, the cops get a warrant. Nothing in this violates your 4th amendment rights.
If you can see megabytes of kiddie porn downloaded to a wireless access point and you seize the poor schmuck's laptop containing said porn
Cops would stop right there. They're not going to bother looking for exculpatory evidence. That's kinda this guy's point: even if it wasn't you downloading that kiddie porn, now you have to prove your innocence. And good luck doing that when the cops control the evidence and may inadvertently destroy that trojan that was doing the actual deed.
Case in point, the school teacher up north who was arrested for showing a bunch of kids porn in a classroom. Even though the porn came through popups that were allowed because of a poorly configured desktop and network, not through any overt action of her own.
Re:How about a series to help lawyers understand
on
You Are Not a Lawyer
·
· Score: 1
Oh come on, you're making it sound like a halfway decent lawyer couldn't write a firewall GUI in Visual Basic to trace an IP. Can't they all do that?
I'm far from a police apologist, but exactly how are the police supposed to charge you with a crime if they have no evidence? And how are they supposed to gather evidence if they have to charge you, first?
The short answer: regulations on banking can be extremely onerous, especially in this post-PATRIOT act world. The cost of keeping track of all those tiny transactions means it's simple not worth the effort to do so.
Grammar certainly is taught in English (or "language arts", as it's called today). What else do you think it is when the kids have to deconstruct a sentence and diagram it?
Heh, I once had an acquaintance who was an English teacher who:
* insisted that "speedily" is not a word * did not understand the difference between "who" and "whom" * thought "friendly" was an adverb (because it ends in "-ly") * didn't understand why "to boldly go" was poor language
I never had much regard for teachers before I met this woman, now I have even less.
Slashdot Mirror
They corrupted the judgment system and left psychological scars on 5000 people, and they did it for profit.
Agreed. Maybe now you understand some of the many problems with the criminal justice system in the US, it's too easily circumvented and can lead to innocent people being imprisoned or executed.
They should be executed.
OK, guess you missed the point. Yes, these two are (allegedly) bad apples and need to be punished (if they are convicted). But you obviously missed the fact that there are 5000 people who were innocent of a crime and were imprisoned. It takes more than just two people to manage something like that, it takes an entire system built on a faulty premise in the first place. Killing these two losers won't solve that, and empowering the state to take their lives (or anyone's, for that matter) would only make things worse in the long run.
Really? And which libertarian/Austrian concepts led to our current predicament? The ones seeking a strong and stable money supply that can't be manipulated by politicians? The ones that would clamp down on fraud, both in the financial sector and in governance? Or the ones that would not prop up failed businesses at the expense of everyone else?
Even in absolute terms, there were casualties at one civil war battle, Antienam, than there have been in Iraq for the entire war, and Lincoln just kept right on rolling with the war.
So did Davis. What's your point?
What makes think they'll know how to? These are Microsoft employees we're talking about.
Ugh, do you know how many carbs are in FUD? You might as well get the Halloween Documents cookie if you're going to indulge that much.
You're seem to be describing people who think they are peppering their conversation with clever non sequiturs, when really they're just using catchphrases inappropriately. If that's your complaint, I'm on board with it. Those people should be shot.
Lighten up, Francis. Witty catchphrases and bon mots have always found a way to enter the language; some die out, some continue for centuries or even millennia. After all, there's nothing new under the sun, and a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Yes, some turn into tired cliches, and I agree with you that rickrolling needs to die. But if you disallowed people from using popculture catch phrases years after they were originally cool, you'd gut out about half of the language (and inadvertently cancel Family Guy).
Two words: commerce clause.
I'm going off my experience with an acquaintance who went to Rio Hondo Police Academy in California. All you need prior to attending is a high school diploma or GED. Though I had the time reversed, it's actually 21 weeks, not 12. But still far short of seven years of college.
Source: http://www.riohondo.edu/LEO/Police%20Academy%20Title%20page.htm
Rio Hondo graduates go on to law enforcement careers throughout California. I live in Texas now, and have no idea what the requirements here are.
No, you misunderstand. They didn't gather false evidence, they gathered evidence insufficient to support the charges that were filed against you, so a jury found you "not guilty" of those charges. Nobody violated your 4th amendment rights in this scenario.
Wow, you really don't understand the 4th amendment, do you?
Probably cause means the cops think it's probably you've committed a crime. Then they go to a judge, who either agrees or disagrees. If the judge agrees, the cops get a warrant. Nothing in this violates your 4th amendment rights.
If you can see megabytes of kiddie porn downloaded to a wireless access point and you seize the poor schmuck's laptop containing said porn
Cops would stop right there. They're not going to bother looking for exculpatory evidence. That's kinda this guy's point: even if it wasn't you downloading that kiddie porn, now you have to prove your innocence. And good luck doing that when the cops control the evidence and may inadvertently destroy that trojan that was doing the actual deed.
Case in point, the school teacher up north who was arrested for showing a bunch of kids porn in a classroom. Even though the porn came through popups that were allowed because of a poorly configured desktop and network, not through any overt action of her own.
Oh come on, you're making it sound like a halfway decent lawyer couldn't write a firewall GUI in Visual Basic to trace an IP. Can't they all do that?
Yes, because four years of college and three years of law school are EXACTLY the same as 12 weeks of police academy.
Or you're using made up statistics.
That's not surprising, 73% of people do.
That guy had to walk from one end of Palestine to the other. I bet he would've killed for a motorcycle!
I'm far from a police apologist, but exactly how are the police supposed to charge you with a crime if they have no evidence? And how are they supposed to gather evidence if they have to charge you, first?
Police don't need to overcome reasonable doubt to get a warrant, just probable cause.
Thanks for proving that techies make horrible lawyers.
Gays queer the place up and atheists are bitter angry people.
More irony, you sound bitter and angry, already.
Sure you do. Change ISPs. And tell them why you changed.
The short answer: regulations on banking can be extremely onerous, especially in this post-PATRIOT act world. The cost of keeping track of all those tiny transactions means it's simple not worth the effort to do so.
I said the usage is "poor", not "incorrect" or "inappropriate". Those are two different things.
And yes, the teacher in question didn't understand the difference between those words, either.
Grammar certainly is taught in English (or "language arts", as it's called today). What else do you think it is when the kids have to deconstruct a sentence and diagram it?
140 comments so far, and not one reference to Old Glory Robot Insurance? I bet a link to the video will make it in the first few posts on Fark.
Hang your collective head in shame.
Heh, I once had an acquaintance who was an English teacher who:
* insisted that "speedily" is not a word
* did not understand the difference between "who" and "whom"
* thought "friendly" was an adverb (because it ends in "-ly")
* didn't understand why "to boldly go" was poor language
I never had much regard for teachers before I met this woman, now I have even less.