>if they are really innocent, then there is a good chance they will be able to prove it long before 30 years has elapsed.
Not really. The burden of proving your innocence is huge. You are in jail, no income, no money to pay for tests and investigators. Even if you show the prosecutors evidence was wrong, that does not prove your innocence. There is a case in TX where the blood type of semen matched and the man was convicted. DNA tests showed it was not a match. Oh well, that did not prove that he was not part of a group that did the crime, and he was not wearing a condom when he did it. Even though the prosecutor never asserted that a group did the crime at trial.
Once you are in jail, innocent or not, you pretty much stay in jail.
Not quite. If a full jury (every single member) finds you not guilty, you are done. If any single member can not make up their mind, it is a mistrial, and the state gets to try again. And again. And again.
Actual not -In the US you have to pay the RIAA again if you play the radio where cutomers can hear it, be it in a taxi, restaurant or dentist office. It does not matter if the radio station paid.
I was just reading the fine print for a Verizon phone - they specificaly exclude from their "Free National In-Network Calling" calls made from a device with "usage substantialy from a single cell site". And - "The accuracy of the roaming indicator can not be guarenteed" 1.99 month for a detailed bill.
The S.Korean's have always protested the US presence in the country - that is until the US announced it was withdrawing troops to serve elsewhere- then the SK government quickly protested the withdrawal.
I can't imagine anyone one (sane that is) in SK welcoming the NK government in.
The SK govenment is very clear - they want the DMZ and the US troops to keep NK from invading. Not reunifiny - invading.
And if everyone on the US drank less water, we could turn the deserts in Africa into water parks.
The logic fails because consuming less doesn't get that the difference to where it is needed. As someone else has already pointed out, distribution is the problem.
Thank God no other country would sell arms to third world countries. Except Russia, which sold $5.7 billion worth of arms; Ukraine ($1.6 billion); Italy ($1.5 billion); and Germany and France ($1.1 billion each). (Y2002 figures) Of course the 2003 figures for France and Germany might be lower now that they can't sell to Iraq.
I still use a Sparc 5 for business reasons. Webserver, ftp server, Email server, running several development applications - works just fine, and 100x more reliable then any of my MS boxes. I use a Xserver on my laptops to run against the system; I also run a VNC server on the S5 to export a remote X desktops. I have no reason to upgrade the system and one reason not to ($$$). It runs without a reboot for months, as solid as a rock. There are several versions of the S5: a 70MHz (slow) up to a 170Mhz(still not fast, not not so bad). All in all, I would not call it crappy. Now if you had said a SparcClassic, I would have agreed with you.
If SCO feel so confident with their intellectual property claims, then they should put their money where their mouth is, and guarantee to refund all licence fees if (when) SCO looses the case.
Prove is the keyword there. Do you really think they are going to mention the previous wiretaps? A anonymous or confidential source is the much more likely story.
Actualy, it wouldn't be evidence at all - the prosecuter would discard that fact because it didn't support his case; and since it didn't _prove_ the defense case, it wasn't exclupatory evidence either, and therefore doesn't need to be disclosed.
Actualy, they can. They can also tap your phone without a warrant. What they can not do is use any information they gather in court. They need to develop another source for the warrant (made easier now that they know what to look for) and use that new information for the warrant.
>Oh, and there's the interesting little subject of decompression to deal with...
You watch too much TV. Planes don't explosivly decompress when a bullet is shot through through the skin.
From www.keepandbeararms.com - MYTH #1 Cabin depressurization will occur if a firearm is discharged on an airplane. 3) Even if you put a common handgun bullet through the side of an airplane -- pick your caliber, any of them -- it will not depressurize a cabin measurably. And what small amount of leakage would occur could be plugged with any number of things within reach of your seat, including a small portion of the tiny pillows and baby blankets you are given by flight attendants. But don't take it from me; listen to two Licensed Aircraft Engineers, one of whom is a Lead Technician for a major airline:
"On the overall question: 'Is shooting hijackers on aircraft an appropriate thing to do considering the risk of damaging the operational integrity of the aircraft,' the answer is 'Hell Yes.' I've been a licensed aircraft mechanic for over 20 years, and I am the Lead Technician for a Major Airline. I know aircraft. It's pretty tough to down a transport category aircraft with small arms fire. Boeing's 737s, 757s and the rest are very much like bulldozers with wings on them in that regard." -- Dan Todd, Licensed Aircraft Engineer for 20 years, Lead Technician for a Major Airline
"One or even several bullets puncturing the pressure cabin wall would be hardly noticeable and the aircraft's pressurization control would easily cope with the slight loss of air. The likelihood of a single bullet causing a massive structural failure is so remote as to be insignificant." -- David M., Licensed Aircraft Engineer
I think several of your points are wrong, but the most obvious one is: >Outlaws will opt to use knives etc instead of guns in robberies etc, because the victim won't have a gun, and the jail time is lower
Wrong - a deadly weapon is still a deadly weapon. In a martial arts school I was in, a police officer member specifically advised us against having any of the weapons of the art - his advice was to just carry get an illegal gun, as it was considered the same under the law.
As for using a knife - that requires close contact. A gun can kill from feet away.
The fact is, where concealed carry is allowed, gun crime declines.
When the Constitution was written, 'militia' was a legal term meaning all able body men over the age of 18. 'Well regulated' also had a legal meaning, but I can not find reference to it at the moment.
I never understood why people got caught up with that part anyway. The admendment is written in a 'reason/result' form i.e. The reason is 'A well regulated Militia...' the result is 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'.
I do not see the ambiguity of 'shall not be'. Even if the reason was wrong, the resulting right is clear.
The complaint says he sent email through Tornado's Email server - but this is just smoke. All Email goes through the destination Email server - that is how Email works!
Slashdot Mirror
>if they are really innocent, then there is a good chance they will be able to prove it long before 30 years has elapsed.
Not really. The burden of proving your innocence is huge. You are in jail, no income, no money to pay for tests and investigators. Even if you show the prosecutors evidence was wrong, that does not prove your innocence. There is a case in TX where the blood type of semen matched and the man was convicted. DNA tests showed it was not a match. Oh well, that did not prove that he was not part of a group that did the crime, and he was not wearing a condom when he did it. Even though the prosecutor never asserted that a group did the crime at trial.
Once you are in jail, innocent or not, you pretty much stay in jail.
Not quite. If a full jury (every single member) finds you not guilty, you are done. If any single member can not make up their mind, it is a mistrial, and the state gets to try again. And again. And again.
I was just on their website, and could find no such posting. (limiting access to 1/2 hour after opening and before closing)
Actually that is not true.
i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm
See http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-
Actual not -In the US you have to pay the RIAA again if you play the radio where cutomers can hear it, be it in a taxi, restaurant or dentist office. It does not matter if the radio station paid.
I was just reading the fine print for a Verizon phone - they specificaly exclude from their "Free National In-Network Calling" calls made from a device with "usage substantialy from a single cell site".
And - "The accuracy of the roaming indicator can not be guarenteed"
1.99 month for a detailed bill.
Even easier - take the red wire and twist it with the black one - instantly (other then the initial 'woof') - no noise.
Must have been a North Korean.
The S.Korean's have always protested the US presence in the country - that is until the US announced it was withdrawing troops to serve elsewhere- then the SK government quickly protested the withdrawal.
I can't imagine anyone one (sane that is) in SK welcoming the NK government in.
The SK govenment is very clear - they want the DMZ and the US troops to keep NK from invading. Not reunifiny - invading.
Actually, they use those also. N.Korea has been mining tunnels under the DMZ for years.
Gerneral Electric had always screwed with the enviornment and played god?
And if everyone on the US drank less water, we could turn the deserts in Africa into water parks.
The logic fails because consuming less doesn't get that the difference to where it is needed. As someone else has already pointed out, distribution is the problem.
Thank God no other country would sell arms to third world countries. Except Russia, which sold $5.7 billion worth of arms; Ukraine ($1.6 billion); Italy ($1.5 billion); and Germany and France ($1.1 billion each). (Y2002 figures)
Of course the 2003 figures for France and Germany might be lower now that they can't sell to Iraq.
I still use a Sparc 5 for business reasons. Webserver, ftp server, Email server, running several development applications - works just fine, and 100x more reliable then any of my MS boxes.
I use a Xserver on my laptops to run against the system; I also run a VNC server on the S5 to export a remote X desktops.
I have no reason to upgrade the system and one reason not to ($$$). It runs without a reboot for months, as solid as a rock.
There are several versions of the S5: a 70MHz (slow) up to a 170Mhz(still not fast, not not so bad).
All in all, I would not call it crappy. Now if you had said a SparcClassic, I would have agreed with you.
If SCO feel so confident with their intellectual property claims, then they should put their money where their mouth is, and guarantee to refund all licence fees if (when) SCO looses the case.
Prove is the keyword there. Do you really think they are going to mention the previous wiretaps? A anonymous or confidential source is the much more likely story.
:-)
I hope you slept well
Actualy, it wouldn't be evidence at all - the prosecuter would discard that fact because it didn't support his case; and since it didn't _prove_ the defense case, it wasn't exclupatory evidence either, and therefore doesn't need to be disclosed.
Actualy, they can. They can also tap your phone without a warrant. What they can not do is use any information they gather in court. They need to develop another source for the warrant (made easier now that they know what to look for) and use that new information for the warrant.
>Oh, and there's the interesting little subject of decompression to deal with...
You watch too much TV. Planes don't explosivly decompress when a bullet is shot through through the skin.
From www.keepandbeararms.com - MYTH #1 Cabin depressurization will occur if a firearm is discharged on an airplane.
3) Even if you put a common handgun bullet through the side of an airplane -- pick your caliber, any of them -- it will not depressurize a cabin measurably. And what small amount of leakage would occur could be plugged with any number of things within reach of your seat, including a small portion of the tiny pillows and baby blankets you are given by flight attendants. But don't take it from me; listen to two Licensed Aircraft Engineers, one of whom is a Lead Technician for a major airline:
"On the overall question: 'Is shooting hijackers on aircraft an appropriate thing to do considering the risk of damaging the operational integrity of the aircraft,' the answer is 'Hell Yes.' I've been a licensed aircraft mechanic for over 20 years, and I am the Lead Technician for a Major Airline. I know aircraft. It's pretty tough to down a transport category aircraft with small arms fire. Boeing's 737s, 757s and the rest are very much like bulldozers with wings on them in that regard." -- Dan Todd, Licensed Aircraft Engineer for 20 years, Lead Technician for a Major Airline
"One or even several bullets puncturing the pressure cabin wall would be hardly noticeable and the aircraft's pressurization control would easily cope with the slight loss of air. The likelihood of a single bullet causing a massive structural failure is so remote as to be insignificant." -- David M., Licensed Aircraft Engineer
I think several of your points are wrong, but the most obvious one is:
>Outlaws will opt to use knives etc instead of guns in robberies etc, because the victim won't have a gun, and the jail time is lower
Wrong - a deadly weapon is still a deadly weapon.
In a martial arts school I was in, a police officer member specifically advised us against having any of the weapons of the art - his advice was to just carry get an illegal gun, as it was considered the same under the law.
As for using a knife - that requires close contact. A gun can kill from feet away.
The fact is, where concealed carry is allowed, gun crime declines.
When the Constitution was written, 'militia' was a legal term meaning all able body men over the age of 18. 'Well regulated' also had a legal meaning, but I can not find reference to it at the moment.
...' the result is 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'.
I never understood why people got caught up with that part anyway. The admendment is written in a 'reason/result' form i.e. The reason is 'A well regulated Militia
I do not see the ambiguity of 'shall not be'. Even if the reason was wrong, the resulting right is clear.
The complaint says he sent email through Tornado's Email server - but this is just smoke. All Email goes through the destination Email server - that is how Email works!