Thanks to that one dumb juror, Broward County just wasted a lot of taxpayers' money.
Meh.. maybe a little bit of money, but the judge and DA aren't paid by the trial, and jury compensation usually amounts to little more than pocket change.
I'm more disturbed by the fact that a juror taking a case seriously enough to want to learn more about the technical aspects would be vilified by anyone. It may have been against the rules, but an educated jury is certainly not the sort of thing we should be discouraging, despite what lawyers may believe. The information may have been erroneous, but that's why there are 12 people in the room to begin with; to hopefully counteract the stupidity of any one member. I think finding some sort of middle ground would be in the best interest of society as a whole. I don't see any reason why we can't make approved reference material available to a jury unless we really don't give a shit about the people on trial, but only the expediency of pseudo-justice.
The time slot is only one of the scarce resources.
It is, but I maintain that it's an artificial scarcity. If networks aired anything worth watching outside of primetime (although granted, there's very little worth watching *during* primetime), it could easily achieve a viable audience these days. This is mainly due to the advent of the set-top DVR, although there are always plenty of people with nonstandard working schedules.
As an aside, it's interesting to see how words enter our vocabulary and maintain their presence even while losing their original meaning. "Set-top box" is a perfect example of this, especially since the word "set" in "television set" is largely archaic itself.
I use KeePass to generate and store complex passwords. Then I just e-mail the encrypted key db to myself on a web-based account. Changes are infrequent, so synchronization isn't that big of an issue. Just don't forget to send yourself updates when you add new sites or change passwords for whatever reason. As a bonus, you'll have redundancy with the presence of the key database on multiple computers and online, so the chances of losing all existing copies are negligible (unless, perhaps, you happen to work and live in the data center that hosts your e-mail account).
It is NOT the job of judges to be legislators or modify laws.
That's an overly simplistic view. It is the job of the courts to interpret the law, and interpretation may or may not include modification from the original intent because neither English nor any other language can provide a perfect representation of ideas, and because context is important. And context can be anything from surrounding paragraphs to related law and case law and, of course, the circumstances of the case before the court. Immutable law would necessarily require perfect expression of thought, which nobody even pretends exists (except, perhaps, for idealists such as yourself who buy into campaign rhetoric), as well as a perfect body of law designed from the ground-up for consistency and fairness instead of the slipshod, slapped-together, design-by-committee method we currently use. If cars were designed like laws, we'd have the body of a Hummer somehow welded to the chassis of a Model T, and the whole ghastly contraption wouldn't be able to move under its own weight.
The demo inherently favors the human player, who has the right of first refusal and no time limit. I'd wager that any moderately curious high-school graduate could win the demo with ease.
It will accomplish something -- it will drive up their Customer Service costs which, if everyone complained, would be far higher than the cost to add capacity.
I was one of the early adopters of 50Mbit service, which was actually just fine at the time. I could cap my upstream and downstream with absolutely no issues. Clearly, at the time, they *had* built-up capacity in advance of the new tier roll out.
Unfortunately, that's no longer true as of August, and I suspect it's because these higher tiers have reached a critical mass which has swamped the new capacity. As you say, their perspective is that providing the service they advertise would cut into profits. So I do my part to make sure that not providing that service costs them even more. Since August, I've called at least weekly to complain, had a service technician out to my house 3 times, and had my bill reduced by 30%. If more people demanded the service they pay for, it would be wildly unprofitable for Comcast to continue down this road.
Uh, yeah, except it's A LOT easier to add lanes to the information superhighway, and bandwidth grows exponentially. Unless content can somehow keep up with the exponential growth of bandwidth (and there's far less reason to believe this of content vs. bandwidth), then at some point capacity will exceed demand.
Right now, 90% of what consumers want *is* available online. Music, TV, movies, games, and correspondence. That's it, and most of it is available online. The only way to add demand now is to add customers, and at some point that too will plateau. In the very worst case, the number of customers has a physical limit equal to the population of the earth. Bandwidth shares no such physical limit; certainly not one that's worth concerning ourselves over. ISPs know this, and they're trying to milk this disparity while they can, and do everything they can to prolong it. Only a fool or a shill would equate the situation to actual traffic and say there's nothing to see here.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be a diculous again.
Thanks to that one dumb juror, Broward County just wasted a lot of taxpayers' money.
Meh.. maybe a little bit of money, but the judge and DA aren't paid by the trial, and jury compensation usually amounts to little more than pocket change.
I'm more disturbed by the fact that a juror taking a case seriously enough to want to learn more about the technical aspects would be vilified by anyone. It may have been against the rules, but an educated jury is certainly not the sort of thing we should be discouraging, despite what lawyers may believe. The information may have been erroneous, but that's why there are 12 people in the room to begin with; to hopefully counteract the stupidity of any one member. I think finding some sort of middle ground would be in the best interest of society as a whole. I don't see any reason why we can't make approved reference material available to a jury unless we really don't give a shit about the people on trial, but only the expediency of pseudo-justice.
Thanks... at least someone got it. ;)
Ooooh, burned!
I agree; a no-edit policy provides incentive to get it right the first time, and I think that results in a higher caliber of comments overall.
But yeah, the grammar nazi in me wants to tell you that pluralized nouns don't receive apostrophes.
The time slot is only one of the scarce resources.
It is, but I maintain that it's an artificial scarcity. If networks aired anything worth watching outside of primetime (although granted, there's very little worth watching *during* primetime), it could easily achieve a viable audience these days. This is mainly due to the advent of the set-top DVR, although there are always plenty of people with nonstandard working schedules.
As an aside, it's interesting to see how words enter our vocabulary and maintain their presence even while losing their original meaning. "Set-top box" is a perfect example of this, especially since the word "set" in "television set" is largely archaic itself.
I use KeePass to generate and store complex passwords. Then I just e-mail the encrypted key db to myself on a web-based account. Changes are infrequent, so synchronization isn't that big of an issue. Just don't forget to send yourself updates when you add new sites or change passwords for whatever reason. As a bonus, you'll have redundancy with the presence of the key database on multiple computers and online, so the chances of losing all existing copies are negligible (unless, perhaps, you happen to work and live in the data center that hosts your e-mail account).
It is NOT the job of judges to be legislators or modify laws.
That's an overly simplistic view. It is the job of the courts to interpret the law, and interpretation may or may not include modification from the original intent because neither English nor any other language can provide a perfect representation of ideas, and because context is important. And context can be anything from surrounding paragraphs to related law and case law and, of course, the circumstances of the case before the court. Immutable law would necessarily require perfect expression of thought, which nobody even pretends exists (except, perhaps, for idealists such as yourself who buy into campaign rhetoric), as well as a perfect body of law designed from the ground-up for consistency and fairness instead of the slipshod, slapped-together, design-by-committee method we currently use. If cars were designed like laws, we'd have the body of a Hummer somehow welded to the chassis of a Model T, and the whole ghastly contraption wouldn't be able to move under its own weight.
Wanna take a guess what her name is?
I dunno, but she looks like a Dike.
Food. Software. Music. Sporting goods.
Oh, you said one thing...
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
My opinion is that if you're using cubicles, you're doing it wrong.
The absence of abject failure is not success by most definitions.
There are some circumstances where that works, but the process of elimination doesn't seem to be the correct method in this case.
The demo inherently favors the human player, who has the right of first refusal and no time limit. I'd wager that any moderately curious high-school graduate could win the demo with ease.
The patent will backdate to 1999
And so be valid for only 5 more years? What happens when it starts taking >=17 years to review and grant a patent?
Haha, me too. Apparently we're not alone either: In 20% of cases it was unable to find a match for people who registered.
Fertility (Children per Woman)
Education (Years, Men)
Education (Years, Women)
All I want to know is whether my driver's license also counts as a horsing license.
So... like smacking yourself in the face with a verbose treatise on the Art of Spoiling Jokes?
A priviledge? Is that anything like an outhouse cliff?
It will accomplish something -- it will drive up their Customer Service costs which, if everyone complained, would be far higher than the cost to add capacity.
I was one of the early adopters of 50Mbit service, which was actually just fine at the time. I could cap my upstream and downstream with absolutely no issues. Clearly, at the time, they *had* built-up capacity in advance of the new tier roll out.
Unfortunately, that's no longer true as of August, and I suspect it's because these higher tiers have reached a critical mass which has swamped the new capacity. As you say, their perspective is that providing the service they advertise would cut into profits. So I do my part to make sure that not providing that service costs them even more. Since August, I've called at least weekly to complain, had a service technician out to my house 3 times, and had my bill reduced by 30%. If more people demanded the service they pay for, it would be wildly unprofitable for Comcast to continue down this road.
Uh, yeah, except it's A LOT easier to add lanes to the information superhighway, and bandwidth grows exponentially. Unless content can somehow keep up with the exponential growth of bandwidth (and there's far less reason to believe this of content vs. bandwidth), then at some point capacity will exceed demand.
Right now, 90% of what consumers want *is* available online. Music, TV, movies, games, and correspondence. That's it, and most of it is available online. The only way to add demand now is to add customers, and at some point that too will plateau. In the very worst case, the number of customers has a physical limit equal to the population of the earth. Bandwidth shares no such physical limit; certainly not one that's worth concerning ourselves over. ISPs know this, and they're trying to milk this disparity while they can, and do everything they can to prolong it. Only a fool or a shill would equate the situation to actual traffic and say there's nothing to see here.
It didn't imply that at all, you simply inferred it.