your words make no sense. literally, it's like you're speaking a language other than english. you have fundamentally not grasped the difference between 'changing your story' and staying silent. they're not the same! if you stay silent in the interview room, that doesn't mean you're 'changing your story' later in court.
maybe there's a fundamental misunderstanding here? maybe you think "staying silent" means answering no to every question. in fact it means, I'm not going to provide a response to that question. ,br>so, you agree with me now. hopefully this clears it up.
so, what's a guy to do? give up? say, "i can't do it"? hire a design house, who will make a wasteful site anyway? pop quiz, hot shot: what would you do?
the difference is that you think the gov't is nice and will do these things regardless, where I think the govt is nasty and will take all they can, except for what is protected by rights. who is correct? spoiler alert: me.
Once again that's a rather US-centric approach. To give a contrasting example again from here in the UK, there are plenty of times that the CPS (our public prosecution service) decide not to go ahead with a prosecution because they decide that it's not in the public interest.
In the US it's the prosecutor's job to prosecute and the judge's job to make decisions on mitgating circumstances. it's a lot cleaner this way.
Right, so as long as the questioning is taking place under caution and legal counsel is present, what's the problem?
duh, this is the purpose of miranda rights, to make sure that this happens! without the rights do you think police would wait for a defense lawyer to arrive?
it's the job of police and prosecutors to get convictions, and they use every tool at their disposal to do so. the purpose of the miranda rights is to draw a bright line to say, you can't bully and manipulate. the defendant should be able to plan his own defense (defence as you say) and so should be able to stay silent until consulting with an attorney.
if you've ever been hauled away in handcuffs late at night (DUI say or something similar) you know how scary and intimidating it is. Without those rights being enumerated to you, you'd probably say and admit to anything
that's why the adversarial justice system works so well!
omg you're totally correct. the era of bad govt is over. now that govt is our friend and is looking out for us we don't need to worry about pesky "rights." you first, my friend.
examples of mobile web2.0 done right? I built a web1.0 mobile page which works well but looks like it's from 1999. Would love to do something that looks current but doesn't blow chunks. any examples would be greatly appreciated!
i developed a mobile site that looks like web 1.0 - lots of white space, limited graphics, text, and a couple forms with some CSS so they look prettier. I feel unsure about it. on the one hand it's blazingly fast, meets all the usability requirements, and is totally mobile-agnostic. on the other hand it makes me feel kinda amateurish compared to some of the slick examples at one of the links in the summary. any thoughts on how I can get past this?
right to remain silent is a subset of right to not be forced to self incriminate which is amendment 5. right to a lawyer is a subset of due process which is also in the bill of rights. GP is right, the whole reason the bill of rights was made in the first place because of the english "bill of non-rights"
there's a difference between what you said and what the GP said. you said, "if you say A to us now, you won't be able to say B later in court." GP said "if you don't say A now, then you won't be able to say it later in court." The difference, of course, is the right to remain silent, and choose neither to say A nor B now, and still use them in court later.
I am from the UK and we have a legal system based on that. Our version of the Miranda rights have a section that reads "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court". I.e. if you say nothing to the police then the jury can be instructed to infer that you made your story up before the trial.
that's your version of "rights?" instead of "you have the right to remain silent" it's "you had better dump your drawers or we'll make it hell for you later." this is why i live in US and use my right to bear arms which is constitutionally protected.
I'm ok with the idea of putting cameras on cops as long as citizens can record cops too, or like in britain if people can get copies of the footage. then it is a good thing.
it forwards everything to google for cataloging and crossreferenicng and advertising. then feds get a warrant and its game over for privacy, as the brits say.
i think if Mars held water before, then it can/will hold it again. it's likely underground or in the ice caps, for example. who knows? maybe mars is a dyson sphere with project genesis inside? the problem is we'll never be able to disprove this.
I assume "you" is the US, but who is "we"? btw I'm in California and I pay $4/gallon. per the pedantry on the metrics article, I'm referring to US gallons which are 3.79 liter.
i think this program is a good one because it will be used to keep children safe. and some parents may have been slashtards and objected for no reason, which would have made the whole system unsafe.
A suggestion for real: make an iPhone app. Everybody can design it, then split it into chunks for each person to do. Have a final product at the end if the year. Or, if you have java backgrounds and pcs then make an android app
Slashdot Mirror
t sherlock
your words make no sense. literally, it's like you're speaking a language other than english. you have fundamentally not grasped the difference between 'changing your story' and staying silent. they're not the same! if you stay silent in the interview room, that doesn't mean you're 'changing your story' later in court.
maybe there's a fundamental misunderstanding here? maybe you think "staying silent" means answering no to every question. in fact it means, I'm not going to provide a response to that question.
,br>so, you agree with me now. hopefully this clears it up.
so, what's a guy to do? give up? say, "i can't do it"? hire a design house, who will make a wasteful site anyway? pop quiz, hot shot: what would you do?
the difference is that you think the gov't is nice and will do these things regardless, where I think the govt is nasty and will take all they can, except for what is protected by rights. who is correct? spoiler alert: me.
Once again that's a rather US-centric approach. To give a contrasting example again from here in the UK, there are plenty of times that the CPS (our public prosecution service) decide not to go ahead with a prosecution because they decide that it's not in the public interest.
In the US it's the prosecutor's job to prosecute and the judge's job to make decisions on mitgating circumstances. it's a lot cleaner this way.
Right, so as long as the questioning is taking place under caution and legal counsel is present, what's the problem?
duh, this is the purpose of miranda rights, to make sure that this happens! without the rights do you think police would wait for a defense lawyer to arrive?
it's the job of police and prosecutors to get convictions, and they use every tool at their disposal to do so. the purpose of the miranda rights is to draw a bright line to say, you can't bully and manipulate. the defendant should be able to plan his own defense (defence as you say) and so should be able to stay silent until consulting with an attorney.
if you've ever been hauled away in handcuffs late at night (DUI say or something similar) you know how scary and intimidating it is. Without those rights being enumerated to you, you'd probably say and admit to anything
that's why the adversarial justice system works so well!
omg you're totally correct. the era of bad govt is over. now that govt is our friend and is looking out for us we don't need to worry about pesky "rights." you first, my friend.
examples of mobile web2.0 done right? I built a web1.0 mobile page which works well but looks like it's from 1999. Would love to do something that looks current but doesn't blow chunks. any examples would be greatly appreciated!
i developed a mobile site that looks like web 1.0 - lots of white space, limited graphics, text, and a couple forms with some CSS so they look prettier. I feel unsure about it. on the one hand it's blazingly fast, meets all the usability requirements, and is totally mobile-agnostic. on the other hand it makes me feel kinda amateurish compared to some of the slick examples at one of the links in the summary. any thoughts on how I can get past this?
right to remain silent is a subset of right to not be forced to self incriminate which is amendment 5. right to a lawyer is a subset of due process which is also in the bill of rights. GP is right, the whole reason the bill of rights was made in the first place because of the english "bill of non-rights"
i dont get it. wrong thread?
there's a difference between what you said and what the GP said. you said, "if you say A to us now, you won't be able to say B later in court." GP said "if you don't say A now, then you won't be able to say it later in court." The difference, of course, is the right to remain silent, and choose neither to say A nor B now, and still use them in court later.
I am from the UK and we have a legal system based on that. Our version of the Miranda rights have a section that reads "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court". I.e. if you say nothing to the police then the jury can be instructed to infer that you made your story up before the trial.
that's your version of "rights?" instead of "you have the right to remain silent" it's "you had better dump your drawers or we'll make it hell for you later." this is why i live in US and use my right to bear arms which is constitutionally protected.
dude, story please? what did you do that you were arrested for assaulting an officer in front of 6 or 7 witnesses?
I'm ok with the idea of putting cameras on cops as long as citizens can record cops too, or like in britain if people can get copies of the footage. then it is a good thing.
what happens in the rest of the work isn't relevant. what is relevant is the price I pay at the pump. and it is very high.
that's why I say who knows? it can't be disproven, so it shouldn't be discounted.
it forwards everything to google for cataloging and crossreferenicng and advertising. then feds get a warrant and its game over for privacy, as the brits say.
i think if Mars held water before, then it can/will hold it again. it's likely underground or in the ice caps, for example. who knows? maybe mars is a dyson sphere with project genesis inside? the problem is we'll never be able to disprove this.
I assume "you" is the US, but who is "we"? btw I'm in California and I pay $4/gallon. per the pedantry on the metrics article, I'm referring to US gallons which are 3.79 liter.
well you could imagine terrorists targeting a schoolbus, for example
you mean my google glass? everybody on slashdot gets a woodie when talking about google glass, so I assume you're not being sarcastic.
there's a natural gas boom, not an oil boom. fuel is still sky high. it costs me $60 to fill my tank and I buy 2 tanks a week.
i think this program is a good one because it will be used to keep children safe. and some parents may have been slashtards and objected for no reason, which would have made the whole system unsafe.
A suggestion for real: make an iPhone app. Everybody can design it, then split it into chunks for each person to do. Have a final product at the end if the year. Or, if you have java backgrounds and pcs then make an android app