Every 2 years, we change half of it out with new people (or the same people) with new political convictions.
So every 2 years the idea that "nobody in Washington is interested in controlling illegal immigration" has an opportunity to get inverted.
In 2006, the government was far-right, and atavistically xenophobic, and buried up to its neck in spendthrift cronyism with big corporations (you know, like Boeing).
Of course, many of the far-right people fighting for this project just a few years before were offering amnesty to illegal immigrants.
As for "build a real fence that actually keeps people out", they have those near every populated portion of the border. The people just climb over, dig under, or run around them.
Because the logistics and risk of posting armed humans along 7,000 miles of wilderness in large enough force to make a difference is even more expensive than this silly "virtual fence" idea.
We're better off doing satellite surveillance and ordinary policing.
Astrology is a superstitious hobby of zero scientific merit
I agree with all of that except the "zero." Astrology makes people interested in astronomy, which is of enormous scientific merit.
On the other hand, Its predictions and arguments have zero scientific merit, and adherence to its principles is evidence of ignorance, stpudity, or fraudulent intent.
There are a lot of innocent people in jail because of juries that didn't care so much about the law, proof, or reasonable doubt as about their feelings towards his [insert prejudicial characteristic here].
And it's not true that jury acquittal can not be reversed. If the judge suspects or determines that the arguments of the lawyers led the jury to nullify the law, he can declare a mistrial. But this works for jury convictions as well. If the trial is conducted properly and the judge doesn't have any way to know that the jury nullified the law, he can't reverse their verdict, whether it's an acquittal or a conviction. To him it's just the jury seeing the facts the way they see them.
The whole point of hiring temporary employees, is that they're expendable under less stringent rules than full-time permanent employees. Last-in, first-out, no benefits, no deference.
The IRS on the other hand doesn't let you classify yourself as a "consultant" if you're using your client's equipment or office space.
They can cite you for refusing to talk to them, but the citation comes with no punishment. And you can get a court to tell them to fuck off entirely if they're bothering you.
They can still investigate your shady neighbors, boss, and parents, but they can't lean on you to do their investigation for them.
In practice, anything that reaches a jury is a confused mess, everything else having been decided by the judge or stipulated by the lawyers.
Jury nullification can work both ways, for and against a defendant, or for and against the prosecution. They're both asserting points in the law, and the jury can ignore the law in either direction.
If the judge had enough of a clue as to what was really the answer, he probably wouldn't let it get that far. So a nullification would have to be pretty blatant for him to intervene.
I don't think that "fair use" is the right term; it's too tied up in copyright, and doesn't extend to all kinds of uses that seem fair for anything not copyrightable. The jailbreak thing is actually in the law.
Now that his code is out, people using it are probably not liable for breaking protection on their systems.
Doesn't mean he's not liable for violating the agreement on his to create and distribute the code.
He should have sued them for taking away the functionality he paid for when he bought his box (if he bought it before they locked it down).
Even if he loses this case, he should still be able to sue them for that.
In fact, he should be using that as a bargaining chip: Drop your suit and let everyone use my code, or I'll counter-sue you and win and you'll have to compensate everyone who owns one of your boxes.
I think if anything went forward the evidence against the guy is clear and they'd end up stipulating that he's the one.
That's why they're fighting jurisdiction and moving against restraining orders instead of taking it to court now and forcing Sony to show proof. If those don't work they should try to negotiate a cheap out, which Sony will piss on, so they probably won't bother to try. When it does get to trial, they'll fight over what it cost them and whether and how much should cost him. No sense pissing off the judge or wasting your client's defense fund by arguing things that are plain in the evidence.
There's an accepted standard for averaging the temperature of the Earth over numerous points throughout a year's worth of data.
And several models for the effects of a change in that number. It's not unreasonable to assume there will be some effects of changing the gross enthalpy of a body as large as our biosphere.
Currently the debate is whether it exists. Once it's proved to exist, to the satisfaction of people who still don't know that it was proved long ago, then the debate will shift to whatever other evasion they want to use to continue doing whatever it is they're doing to make money by fucking up the environment.
Slashdot Mirror
That revenue stream is tiny.
Can you imagine how much it'd be worth if it was ad-supported?
Zuck would be Jimbo's bitch.
Shouting nonsense, throwing tantrums when you try to make it do the right thing, always trying to get more out of you.
All of my apps have an MSRP of $350 billion.
Amazon is free to set retail price wherever they like, as long as I get my $50 per copy.
Same way we keep our illegals. By paying them and threatening them with deportation.
You forget how our government is run.
Every 2 years, we change half of it out with new people (or the same people) with new political convictions.
So every 2 years the idea that "nobody in Washington is interested in controlling illegal immigration" has an opportunity to get inverted.
In 2006, the government was far-right, and atavistically xenophobic, and buried up to its neck in spendthrift cronyism with big corporations (you know, like Boeing).
Of course, many of the far-right people fighting for this project just a few years before were offering amnesty to illegal immigrants.
As for "build a real fence that actually keeps people out", they have those near every populated portion of the border. The people just climb over, dig under, or run around them.
Fences don't work. Patrols don't work. Jails and deportation don't work.
Making people want to stay in their own country is the only thing that keeps them from crossing the border.
Because the logistics and risk of posting armed humans along 7,000 miles of wilderness in large enough force to make a difference is even more expensive than this silly "virtual fence" idea.
We're better off doing satellite surveillance and ordinary policing.
"delays, glitches, budget increases and congressional criticism"
I think that description of Boeing was cribbed from its 2006 annual report, so really, the government has nothing to cry "foul" on here.
Stpudity being the better part of vaolr.
Astrology is a superstitious hobby of zero scientific merit
I agree with all of that except the "zero." Astrology makes people interested in astronomy, which is of enormous scientific merit.
On the other hand, Its predictions and arguments have zero scientific merit, and adherence to its principles is evidence of ignorance, stpudity, or fraudulent intent.
There are a lot of innocent people in jail because of juries that didn't care so much about the law, proof, or reasonable doubt as about their feelings towards his [insert prejudicial characteristic here].
And it's not true that jury acquittal can not be reversed. If the judge suspects or determines that the arguments of the lawyers led the jury to nullify the law, he can declare a mistrial. But this works for jury convictions as well. If the trial is conducted properly and the judge doesn't have any way to know that the jury nullified the law, he can't reverse their verdict, whether it's an acquittal or a conviction. To him it's just the jury seeing the facts the way they see them.
Nullification works both ways.
I don't trust any court. That's why I bring my own lawyer.
Not all.
Some were delivered by Cesarean section.
That's an extraction, not a birth, no matter what the doctors say on the forms.
99.8% of their DNA is in common. That's pretty deadly too, huh. But DNA can be immortal. So maybe we're just being used by it and then discarded.
I don't get your meaning.
The whole point of hiring temporary employees, is that they're expendable under less stringent rules than full-time permanent employees. Last-in, first-out, no benefits, no deference.
The IRS on the other hand doesn't let you classify yourself as a "consultant" if you're using your client's equipment or office space.
Er, no.
I'm going to let Google make me look smarter than I am, here, since I haven't seen this story before:
Why the FSB is not the KGB!
They can cite you for refusing to talk to them, but the citation comes with no punishment. And you can get a court to tell them to fuck off entirely if they're bothering you.
They can still investigate your shady neighbors, boss, and parents, but they can't lean on you to do their investigation for them.
End of an era.
In practice, anything that reaches a jury is a confused mess, everything else having been decided by the judge or stipulated by the lawyers.
Jury nullification can work both ways, for and against a defendant, or for and against the prosecution. They're both asserting points in the law, and the jury can ignore the law in either direction.
If the judge had enough of a clue as to what was really the answer, he probably wouldn't let it get that far. So a nullification would have to be pretty blatant for him to intervene.
But I betcha none of them will say it was their births that killed them.
The other 141 million people are now not spying on each other as a means of appeasing the people spying on them.
I don't think that "fair use" is the right term; it's too tied up in copyright, and doesn't extend to all kinds of uses that seem fair for anything not copyrightable. The jailbreak thing is actually in the law.
Now that his code is out, people using it are probably not liable for breaking protection on their systems.
Doesn't mean he's not liable for violating the agreement on his to create and distribute the code.
Birth is 100% lethal.
I got 6 billion people say you're wrong.
There. I told a different joke. A nerdier one. There ought to be a +1 Nerdy mod for that sort of thing here.
That argument won't work.
He should have sued them for taking away the functionality he paid for when he bought his box (if he bought it before they locked it down).
Even if he loses this case, he should still be able to sue them for that.
In fact, he should be using that as a bargaining chip: Drop your suit and let everyone use my code, or I'll counter-sue you and win and you'll have to compensate everyone who owns one of your boxes.
Jury nullification works both ways.
Don't do it.
I think if anything went forward the evidence against the guy is clear and they'd end up stipulating that he's the one.
That's why they're fighting jurisdiction and moving against restraining orders instead of taking it to court now and forcing Sony to show proof. If those don't work they should try to negotiate a cheap out, which Sony will piss on, so they probably won't bother to try. When it does get to trial, they'll fight over what it cost them and whether and how much should cost him. No sense pissing off the judge or wasting your client's defense fund by arguing things that are plain in the evidence.
There's an accepted standard for averaging the temperature of the Earth over numerous points throughout a year's worth of data.
And several models for the effects of a change in that number. It's not unreasonable to assume there will be some effects of changing the gross enthalpy of a body as large as our biosphere.
Currently the debate is whether it exists. Once it's proved to exist, to the satisfaction of people who still don't know that it was proved long ago, then the debate will shift to whatever other evasion they want to use to continue doing whatever it is they're doing to make money by fucking up the environment.
No, but he's Dublin up on his bet...