So, hypothetically, if my neighbor has been making pornographic photos featuring my twin 8 year old daughters and a policeman seizes the only evidence that could be used to convict him, but he fails to first obtain the proper warrants, then the courts will let my neighbor go free.
The way I see it, the only choice is not to ignore the evidence, convict my neighbor of child porn (with a life sentence, on second thought make that a death sentence) and convict the police officer (community service to one month in jail). The punishment for constitutional violation by the officer should be mitigated by the circumstances. (In this case he could plead not guilty and the jury would probably refuse to convict him.)
The "shall not be violated" rule doesn't indicate that the court should close its eyes to the danger that the perpetrator represents nor to the evidence thus obtained. No more so than if the evidence were uncovered by an "act of God". (His house gets hit by a tornado and the photographs blow down the street.) The fourth amendment would be adequately enforced by the threat to the freedom of those who fail to obtain the proper warrants.
Now we're getting way off topic.
"If the cops can walk into my house without a warrant, and find a crop of marijuana, they can arrest me, and I'll be convicted, because the evidence would be allowed; even though they didn't follow proper procedure."
"It can suck sometimes, but it does protect our freedoms."
Throwing the evidence out makes no sense to me. You broke the law by having the crop and the evidence should be used to convict you. The fact that the police entered illegaly is a separate violation of the law by the police officers. They should be charged with breaking and entering and violation of the 4th Amendment. That way they'll be encouraged to obtain the proper warrants. But you won't get off free because of their failure to follow the law.
"As a citizen of the UK I'm having difficulty understanding this whole US judicial process."
The main reason that our US system doesn't work is because our judges and attorneys don't wear proper little wigs such as you have in the UK.:)
Sherman and Peabody's new mission
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
"Sherman, set the wayback machine to September 10th, 2001..."
"ONE GOOD April Fools day joke that actually has a chance of fooling someone with an IQ over 60?" Man,do I feel stupid. When I saw first saw this I didn't realize the date and actually got sucked in until I started reading Linus' nomination list.
Ever notice the "right to work" states in the U.S. tend to have generally lower living standards than the states in which the unions are allowed to negotiate closed shops. All it takes is a few scared employees to break the solidarity that a union needs to negotiate beneficial contracts for its members. Employers play one state against the other, threatening constantly to move to a state with laws that assist the employer in maintaining lower labor costs. The way I see it the state should not be permitted to interfere in the contract between the union and the employer. There should be a federal law eliminating the "right to work" states. If you work with me and you don't want to join a union go work somewhere else. You're free to quit.
The problem is guns. Only the bad guys have them. The bad guys are going to have them no matter what kind of laws you pass prohibiting them. What would happen if the good guys had guns too?
No, you don't fight fire with fire. You fight it with water. You fight FUD with the truth. You made a valid point though when you said that unbiased testing cannot be done or paid for by the Linux community. Nor can it be done by Microsoft. So what is needed is for the Linux community to throw down the gauntlet. Challenge Microsoft to a duel. Let both sides agree upon an independent referree to determine how each system performs on a series of benchmarks. Half of the testing criteria could be determined by MS. The other half by the Linux community. The types of machines involved would be agreed upon and each side would be responsible for optimizing their own setup.
No, you fight fire with water. And you fight FUD with the truth.
My 75 Mhz pentium with Netscape 4.5 has no problem
on
Linux on Dilbert
·
· Score: 1
Subject says it all. Page loads fine. I even emailed the color version to a friend. Yep, If Dilbert fans know about it. It's mainstream.
MS-Linux to be distributed with MS-Office?
on
MS Office for Linux
·
· Score: 1
I would imagine MS only is developing this in case Linux becomes more popular than they presently believe it will. They are just keeping their bases covered. If Linux doesn't dominate the market, the Linux version of Office will remain safely tucked away in a back room in Redmond. If they do release it though, I would imagine they will give away their own Linux distribution with each copy of Office they sell. The question then, is will Office Linux run on the X11 Windowing system or will MS try to develop their own GUI for Linux?
When Microsoft began touting Linux as an alternative to Windows in their case with the DOJ, they didn't believe their own words. Now they are trying to backpeddle. It's fun to watch Microsoft try to convince the DOJ that Linux is competition and, simultaneously, convince customers that it isn't. Even more fun since huge numbers of people are starting to see that it really is more competition than Microsoft will be able to handle.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember back in 1999 when the moon flew out of orbit due to a nuclear explosion from the reactors that powered Moon Base Alpha. :-)
So, hypothetically, if my neighbor has been making pornographic photos featuring my twin 8 year old daughters and a policeman seizes the only evidence that could be used to convict him, but he fails to first obtain the proper warrants, then the courts will let my neighbor go free.
The way I see it, the only choice is not to ignore the evidence, convict my neighbor of child porn (with a life sentence, on second thought make that a death sentence) and convict the police officer (community service to one month in jail). The punishment for constitutional violation by the officer should be mitigated by the circumstances. (In this case he could plead not guilty and the jury would probably refuse to convict him.)
The "shall not be violated" rule doesn't indicate that the court should close its eyes to the danger that the perpetrator represents nor to the evidence thus obtained. No more so than if the evidence were uncovered by an "act of God". (His house gets hit by a tornado and the photographs blow down the street.) The fourth amendment would be adequately enforced by the threat to the freedom of those who fail to obtain the proper warrants.
Now we're getting way off topic.
"If the cops can walk into my house without a warrant, and find a crop of marijuana, they can arrest me, and I'll be convicted, because the evidence would be allowed; even though they didn't follow proper procedure."
"It can suck sometimes, but it does protect our freedoms."
Throwing the evidence out makes no sense to me. You broke the law by having the crop and the evidence should be used to convict you. The fact that the police entered illegaly is a separate violation of the law by the police officers. They should be charged with breaking and entering and violation of the 4th Amendment. That way they'll be encouraged to obtain the proper warrants. But you won't get off free because of their failure to follow the law.
"As a citizen of the UK I'm having difficulty understanding this whole US judicial process." :)
The main reason that our US system doesn't work is because our judges and attorneys don't wear proper little wigs such as you have in the UK.
"Sherman, set the wayback machine to September 10th, 2001..."
"ONE GOOD April Fools day joke that actually has a chance of fooling someone with an IQ over 60?"
Man,do I feel stupid. When I saw first saw this I didn't realize the date and actually got sucked in until I started reading Linus' nomination list.
Ever notice the "right to work" states in the U.S. tend to have generally lower living standards than the states in which the unions are allowed to negotiate closed shops. All it takes is a few scared employees to break the solidarity that a union needs to negotiate beneficial contracts for its members. Employers play one state against the other, threatening constantly to move to a state with laws that assist the employer in maintaining lower labor costs. The way I see it the state should not be permitted to interfere in the contract between the union and the employer. There should be a federal law eliminating the "right to work" states. If you work with me and you don't want to join a union go work somewhere else. You're free to quit.
That's "the last thing" as in "the last step of my big plan". Not as in "something I don't want to do at all". That's what he meant to say, right? :-)
The problem is guns. Only the bad guys have them. The bad guys are going to have them no matter what kind of laws you pass prohibiting them. What would happen if the good guys had guns too?
No, you don't fight fire with fire. You fight it with water. You fight FUD with the truth. You made a valid point though when you said that unbiased testing cannot be done or paid for by the Linux community. Nor can it be done by Microsoft. So what is needed is for the Linux community to throw down the gauntlet. Challenge Microsoft to a duel. Let both sides agree upon an independent referree to determine how each system performs on a series of benchmarks. Half of the testing criteria could be determined by MS. The other half by the Linux community. The types of machines involved would be agreed upon and each side would be responsible for optimizing their own setup.
No, you fight fire with water. And you fight FUD with the truth.
Subject says it all. Page loads fine. I even emailed the color version to a friend.
Yep, If Dilbert fans know about it. It's mainstream.
I would imagine MS only is developing this in case Linux becomes more popular than they presently believe it will. They are just keeping their bases covered. If Linux doesn't dominate the market, the Linux version of Office will remain safely tucked away in a back room in Redmond.
If they do release it though, I would imagine they will give away their own Linux distribution with each copy of Office they sell.
The question then, is will Office Linux run on the X11 Windowing system or will MS try to develop their own GUI for Linux?
The nerve of him not keeping up with this, Whatever we're paying him, let's cut it down.:-)
When Microsoft began touting Linux as an alternative to Windows in their case with the DOJ, they didn't believe their own words. Now they are trying to backpeddle. It's fun to watch Microsoft try to convince the DOJ that Linux is competition and, simultaneously, convince customers that it isn't.
Even more fun since huge numbers of people are starting to see that it really is more competition than Microsoft will be able to handle.