The power of jury nullification certainly exists, and nobody is claiming otherwise -- but it is not an intended power, not in the US.
Given that the writers of the Bill of Rights were almost certainly aware of the 1670 trial of William Penn (where the whole jury went to prison rather than convict him -- now that's mass moral fortitude), it seems hard to believe it was unintended.
When something goes to trial the plaintiff or prosecutor and the defense agree to a set of ground rules which include the jury only acting within their power and on the basis of the evidence given.
Everything the defendant "agrees to" is under duress. If he refuses to co-operate with the system, the system will simply continue to operate to convict and sentence him. There is no deal.
The way I look at it, if I am placed on a jury (under duress, as jury duty is compulsory) where the defendant is unquestionably in violation of the law, but the law is something I feel is unjust, I really have only two choices -- I can ratify the injustice by voting "guilty", or I can deny or delay the injustice by voting "not guilty". To me, the choice is easy; I will not willingly facilitate injustice.
I remember the proposed NJ programmer licensing law as well. But what I didn't realize is that Texas actually passed one in the 1990s. And the IEEE supports such laws -- the ACM opposes licensing and withdrew from a joint organization (with the IEEE) over the issue.
Texas's software engineering license is such a comical extreme that only a hardcore licensing advocate could possibly want to use it as a guide. The requirements include 1) An accepted 4 year degree. This includes a computer science degree. 2) 16 years of "creditable" experience doing engineering work. Or only 12 years if you have one of the proper degrees (which does NOT include a computer science degree, since they are not accredited as engineering degrees). Note that "creditable experience" in licensing programs generally means "work done under the supervision of a licensed engineer"; in any case, a licensed engineer has to attest that the work done was engineering work. 3) References from nine people, including five licensed engineers 4) Bunches of other crap.
With a calculator, it should be possible to arrive at a plausible result pretty damn quickly, even if you do have to make a few stabs at what to do with the factors of 5, 9 and 32.
If I have to convert fahrenheit to celcius, if I don't just type it into Google, I derive the formulas knowing that one degree = 5/9th of the other, -40 is a fixed point of the conversion and 32F = 0C. For some reason if I go from memory I always garble it.
The 'guestimation' strategy fails at question 5 that has two answers that are very close to each other ($203.00 and $208.80). However, my mathematical instincts tell me that 203.00 is an unlikely outcome when multiplying with 29. I used a calculator to confirm my guess (as allowed by the test).
You still don't need the calculator. The problem is (29 * 288) / 40. Reduce that to (29 * 72)/10, and you immediately see the last digit must be 8.
What I wonder about is, whatever happened to Black Box programming? Why do we need to care what language is used, as long as we understand its interface?
I don't want a bill that goes off the concept of being extreme, then "compromise" on a "reasonable" bill.
I'm willing to compromise, but here's my starting position:
Title 17 of the United States Code is hereby repealed. All rights and privileges formerly granted under this code are null and void. The United States hereby withdraws from the Berne Convention, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, and the World Intellectual Property Organization. Any currently living executive or lawyer who is now or ever has worked for the RIAA or the MPAA or their foreign counterparts is declared outlaw, and the United States will pay a $50,000 bounty for their capture dead or alive.
Speed isn't really important, because it's capped by speed limits anyway, so as long as your car can reach the speed limits, who cares? Cornering ability is mandated by law - if your car sucks so hard at cornering, it won't get approved to drive on public roads. As long as it meets the minimum standard, who cares? Acceleration is likewise unimportant for the actual purpose of transportation. As long as it's not totally ridiculous, having a poor acceleration will increase the length of your journey only a miniscule amount
Few want a minimum standard car. Nobody wants a minimum standard car that costs more than a lot of more capable models.
Blowing stuff up (even your own drones) in another sovereign nation is usually considered an act of war. This sovereign nation happens to have Russia and China as allies.
You don't need to blow it up. Just hold the control surfaces in extreme positions.
Many of the hardware devices we buy, such as smart phones and video game consoles, contain a good deal of sophisticated software or firmware (which is just software stored in some form of semi-permanent storage, such as flash memory or ROM chips). When you buy such a device, you are buying hardware, as well as a license to use the included software or firmware often under the condition that the software not be modified by the end user. This is where many of the physical good analogies break down.
They don't break down. The licensing argument is bull manure. You cannot buy a ROM or a flash memory containing software without buying a copy of the software contained therein, by the operation of 17 USC 101.
But there is more to unionization than compensation. Though I do support collective bargaining (which does not need to be seniority based, and can be performance based).
But oddly enough, always seems to have seniority as the major component.
Unionization can be used as a tool to bring product quality back into the hands of those that produce the product. Having a union to collectively support only quality changes should improve overall product quality.
Having a bunch of politically-oriented greybeards who once (or currently) held the title "developer" decide on the contents of the three-ring binder one must follow is not much better than letting the pointy-haired boss with the latest management book do it.
Just remember that the corporation is bargaining against you, as there goal is to maximize profit, and they are doing it collectively. If you want to even the score you do your bargaining collectively.
Except that I can't. No matter what I do, I'm an individual. Bringing a union into it just makes it a three-way bargain, and assuming the union is on my side is a good way to lose.
The law very clearly states that unless you have a "yes" in writing, the answer is "no".
Actually, it doesn't. The "in writing" requirement applies only to transfer of copyright, not to permission/licensing. And of course fair use and first sale and uses not restricted by copyright law require no permission at all.
Just about every book out there has this little line saying "written by". There's your "unknown" right there. If Google can't contact the author, tough. If Google CLAIMS they can't contact the author (meaning, they never tried), tough. No signature, no permission.
1. TLC shows show about couple buying a house only to upgrade it and sell it a couple of years down the line...flipping. "Flipping houses is fun and easy"
Only if you didn't watch the shows more than once. I saw lots of them where the buyer got out barely what they put in, or lost money, and one where the buyer ended up living in a single-wide trailer having lost everything (including his marriage). And that was during the boom time.
I'll take the orange pill: an intelligent dictator whose views are what's best for humankind.
I'll take the orange and red striped pill: An intelligent dictator whose views are what's best for humankind, but whose actions are just different enough from optimum to ensure that me and mine get to live the good life. And so the corruption begins;-)
Art imitiates life. "Total Information Access" was a real DARPA program. It was "cancelled", but of course that just means they changed the name. Perhaps to "PRODIGAL". As I recall, the symbol for TIA was the all-seeing eye (the one on the back of the dollar bill), which was probably DARPA trolling the paranoids.
People always get that bit confused. What it REALLY means is "A person who spends money in a recklessly extravagant way."
ROTFL. Not being up on my bible, I thought that "prodigal" was related to "prodigy" and "prodigious" was the one which meant wasteful. But you're right, it's the other way around.
Yes, that's what makes it tricky. I wasn't supposed to have these documents, but some important internal drawings have been lost, and I have a copy. The safest solution would be to avoid bringing it up, I agree. Though I'm not blackmailing them for the documents or anything.
If it's not classified or anything, I'd suggest you make another copy and "find" it somewhere. Perhaps this company has a disused file cabinet in a basement restroom marked "beware of the leopard" that it can be "found" in... and if it doesn't, maybe they'll be happy enough to have it not to ask too many questions.
This sounds like they are more interested in recruiting people to analyze stuff like Stuxnet
Yes, that's probably exactly what they're after.
If they're really looking for people who can do that, they should be looking at people who crack DRM.
Oh, are most of the people like that keeping their heads down and unlikely to be considering government jobs? Gee golly, I can't imagine why...
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the writers of the Bill of Rights were almost certainly aware of the 1670 trial of William Penn (where the whole jury went to prison rather than convict him -- now that's mass moral fortitude), it seems hard to believe it was unintended.
Everything the defendant "agrees to" is under duress. If he refuses to co-operate with the system, the system will simply continue to operate to convict and sentence him. There is no deal.
The way I look at it, if I am placed on a jury (under duress, as jury duty is compulsory) where the defendant is unquestionably in violation of the law, but the law is something I feel is unjust, I really have only two choices -- I can ratify the injustice by voting "guilty", or I can deny or delay the injustice by voting "not guilty". To me, the choice is easy; I will not willingly facilitate injustice.
I remember the proposed NJ programmer licensing law as well. But what I didn't realize is that Texas actually passed one in the 1990s. And the IEEE supports such laws -- the ACM opposes licensing and withdrew from a joint organization (with the IEEE) over the issue.
Texas's software engineering license is such a comical extreme that only a hardcore licensing advocate could possibly want to use it as a guide. The requirements include
1) An accepted 4 year degree. This includes a computer science degree.
2) 16 years of "creditable" experience doing engineering work. Or only 12 years if you have one of the proper degrees (which does NOT include a computer science degree, since they are not accredited as engineering degrees). Note that "creditable experience" in licensing programs generally means "work done under the supervision of a licensed engineer"; in any case, a licensed engineer has to attest that the work done was engineering work.
3) References from nine people, including five licensed engineers
4) Bunches of other crap.
If I have to convert fahrenheit to celcius, if I don't just type it into Google, I derive the formulas knowing that one degree = 5/9th of the other, -40 is a fixed point of the conversion and 32F = 0C. For some reason if I go from memory I always garble it.
You still don't need the calculator. The problem is (29 * 288) / 40. Reduce that to (29 * 72)/10, and you immediately see the last digit must be 8.
So in the early part of the 20th century, did people speak with vibrato?
Do the researchers really know if this is new, or are they just noticing something that's always been there.
If James Earl Jones were to drop into the vocal fry register, could anyone hear him and would USGS seismologists notice?
Abstractions leak.
I'm willing to compromise, but here's my starting position:
Title 17 of the United States Code is hereby repealed. All rights and privileges formerly granted under this code are null and void. The United States hereby withdraws from the Berne Convention, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, and the World Intellectual Property Organization. Any currently living executive or lawyer who is now or ever has worked for the RIAA or the MPAA or their foreign counterparts is declared outlaw, and the United States will pay a $50,000 bounty for their capture dead or alive.
Few want a minimum standard car. Nobody wants a minimum standard car that costs more than a lot of more capable models.
You don't need to blow it up. Just hold the control surfaces in extreme positions.
They don't break down. The licensing argument is bull manure. You cannot buy a ROM or a flash memory containing software without buying a copy of the software contained therein, by the operation of 17 USC 101.
Ahh, slashdot, where the obvious trolls are Insightful. Putting in the bit about Open Source was kind of overdoing it, don't you think?
But oddly enough, always seems to have seniority as the major component.
Having a bunch of politically-oriented greybeards who once (or currently) held the title "developer" decide on the contents of the three-ring binder one must follow is not much better than letting the pointy-haired boss with the latest management book do it.
Except that I can't. No matter what I do, I'm an individual. Bringing a union into it just makes it a three-way bargain, and assuming the union is on my side is a good way to lose.
Mr. Rao: Please write articles while drunk more often. They are quite amusing.
Actually, it doesn't. The "in writing" requirement applies only to transfer of copyright, not to permission/licensing. And of course fair use and first sale and uses not restricted by copyright law require no permission at all.
No standing to sue, no case.
Only if you didn't watch the shows more than once. I saw lots of them where the buyer got out barely what they put in, or lost money, and one where the buyer ended up living in a single-wide trailer having lost everything (including his marriage). And that was during the boom time.
I'll take the orange and red striped pill: An intelligent dictator whose views are what's best for humankind, but whose actions are just different enough from optimum to ensure that me and mine get to live the good life. And so the corruption begins ;-)
Art imitiates life. "Total Information Access" was a real DARPA program. It was "cancelled", but of course that just means they changed the name. Perhaps to "PRODIGAL". As I recall, the symbol for TIA was the all-seeing eye (the one on the back of the dollar bill), which was probably DARPA trolling the paranoids.
ROTFL. Not being up on my bible, I thought that "prodigal" was related to "prodigy" and "prodigious" was the one which meant wasteful. But you're right, it's the other way around.
So are we going to see a giant hand moving the spaceships around?
int foo()
{
return 5;
}
Hmm. // always returns 4
$ svn blame
1001 mcrawford int foo()
1001 mcrawford {
1001 mcrawford
1001 mcrawford return 5;
1001 mcrawford }
As I suspected.
If it's not classified or anything, I'd suggest you make another copy and "find" it somewhere. Perhaps this company has a disused file cabinet in a basement restroom marked "beware of the leopard" that it can be "found" in... and if it doesn't, maybe they'll be happy enough to have it not to ask too many questions.
If they're really looking for people who can do that, they should be looking at people who crack DRM. Oh, are most of the people like that keeping their heads down and unlikely to be considering government jobs? Gee golly, I can't imagine why...
The RQ-170 isn't a killing machine, it's a spying machine. If it was an armed drone, you might have a point.
No more "aggression" than any other form of espionage.