;Sounds like the OJ Simpson case. Basically a case of an inept judge who was more into publicity than justice. There is no reason that a simple murder trial need take a year.
I'm not quite sure why a 2000 page decision is needed in a trial of this kind, either. The most serious constitutional questions in any democratic court get settled in a dozen pages or so. This case just sounds like it is a straightforward issue of facts.
If the defendants were placed in prison this entire time, then they probably have already served a longer sentence than they might in many democracies (that depends on the seriousness of the crime - you didn't describe the charges in detail so I'm not sure what the likely outcome would be).
Agreed that MS Word isn't suited to 2000 page documents. Even if they didn't want to use something else in most companies the solution would be to simply split the document up and print a bunch of 100 page documents. Actually, most companies don't print 2000 page documents for any purpose, unless they have some requirement to keep accounting records on paper or something in which case they just hit print on their general ledger software and be done with it.
Well, it could be argued that android alone isn't very functional. It doesn't even have a package manager or market. Who makes an OS without any kind of software management capability at all these days?
Those "optional" google apps pretty much are the only reason anybody runs it.
Don't get me wrong - I love android. However, it has a ways to go before it truly is "open."
Thanks for the info - yup - rate seems to be much higher.
However, keep in mind that we're still talking rates that are maybe 0.1% of the population or so - with a very skewed demographic aspect to them.
If I were black and lived in Detriot no doubt my perspective would be different, and I'd be the first to argue that this should not be the case.
In any case, my point is that US police abuse is neither cause for us to all leave the country, nor cause for us to all just look the other way. It destroys the rule of law and the principles of justice.
Well, the reality is that police do everything he mentioned, but it is only some of the police, and it is relatively infrequent. In the US, you're probably only a little more likely to be abused by a police officer than you are to die in an airplane crash. Generally you have to end up interacting with police for that to happen. Being a criminal of course is the easiest way to end up dealing with the police. However, ticking off a neighbor or an ex-spouse, or just being really unlucky can get you there as well.
I don't think I'd consider this as a reason to not move to the US, unless you also use airline safety statistics to decide what country to live in.
However, to outright dismiss his concerns is to take the opposite extreme. We certainly take airline safety seriously, and this is less of a problem than police corruption. Reforms are clearly needed, since nobody should have any reason to fear anything but due processes if they are accused of a crime.
Suppose you're using a computer that you aren't supposed to install software on. NXClient on a USB stick is all you need to access everything you want. Or, you can set up all kinds of ssh tunnels and client software, and try to keep that all up-to-date using zero-footprint USB editions.
Neatx works just fine for remote access - except when programmers go crazy with effects. I have no idea why a recent thunderbird upgrade causes it to completely refresh the window about 10 times every time I click on a message, but it drives me nuts.
I'd consider eliminating the copilot as long as there is a reliable layer of redundancy.
I'd start by making the planes capable of completely autonomous operation (at least after takeoff - if the pilot drops dead while taxing out of the gate that isn't nearly as big of a problem if you put a dead man's switch in and have it turn on the brakes and cut the engines (while on the ground only - need to be careful too since some gear failures could trick the computer into thinking that it is on the ground)). At that point the pilot himself is already a layer of redundancy.
We should really try to get aircraft to the point where flight crews are completely unnecessary for routine operation. We can still have them as backups, and they can even fly the plane on occasion to maintain proficiency. However, ATC should be able to operate without humans talking on the radio, etc.
We're far closer to this with planes than we are with cars, so might as well start there. It would have the potential to both save money and increase safety.
However, I fully agree that at present a copilot really is a strict requirement. I would not fly on a single-pilot passenger aircraft until AFTER the kinds of technologies I describe above are mature.
I think the problem is that in IT we're used to building machines, and we build them from parts. Often those parts and the product are software, but it is all the same.
If I want to upgrade 1000 computers I need 1000 sticks of RAM and 1000 CPUs. Therefore, if I want to program 1000 pieces of software I must need 1000 units of programmers.
IT leaders lack the ability to assess what they have and work with it. Indeed, "best practices" almost encourage this mentality. What do you deliver? Well, what do the requirements ask for? Never mind if that is the best use of what you have.
There needs to be a balance - a company needs to have strategic goals, but it also needs to make tactical use of the resources that it has.
A friend of mine expressed it well - suppose you are coaching a football (US) team. Do you just write up a playbook without any regard to the players you have, based on studies on the merits of the plays themselves? Suppose that logic dictates that a passing offense is the best option - so you tell your players to start doing passes. Hey, any NFL player ought to be able to be part of a passing offense, right? Well, suppose you have three of the best running backs in the league, but your receivers are all below par? Is that really a smart move? Sure, they can be generalists, but if you focus on what they're good at you'll get far more out of them.
IT managers focus on the projects, and then fit resources to them. They don't say, "hey, we've got 3 people that are the best in the industry at doing X, so is there any business benefit from doing X even though nobody is asking for it now?"
Now, of course there has to be a balance - a company also has to have strategy and not just tactics, and sometimes strategy tells you to trade your star running back. However, we're far from that problem in most of IT.
Uh, that was exactly my suggestion. Except that the loser would reimburse the cost to reduce the public expense part. I didn't require court-appointment - only that the budgets be identical for both sides and the rates regulated.
Yes, I realized that. This is why I mentioned Europe at all.
If you actually read the article, you'll notice that he has not been awarded costs. He has only been grated the opportunity to pursue costs. There is no guarantee that he'll get them, or all of them.
The fact that he faces this risk means that contesting a lawsuit still is a risky proposition, even in Europe.
Again, as I stated the European system is better than the US one in this regard. I just am stating that it is not perfect. Perhaps you disagree.
My proposal would cost a poor (say income less than $200k/yr) plaintiff nothing up-front, and nothing at all if they win. It would also pay the poor person to show up to court, and it would pay for them to have an attorney. That attorney would be paid a reasonable rate regardless of outcome, and wouldn't get 30% of some huge settlement or some nonsense like that.
I specifically thought of the concerns your raise, which is why I suggested that only plaintiffs with means would have to pay to sue. It would mainly be targeted at corporate entities or the rich so that they can't play mass-lawsuit games.
However, the various articles did indicate that whether he will receive his costs is uncertain, and that said costs might not make him whole.
Plus, if you have to pay attorneys $200k today, and you might get $200k back two years from now, I'd argue that you are taking a risk of a huge loss, and a guarantee of a moderate loss. $200k today is worth a lot more than $200k two years from now - just ask any lender.
My proposal only required any cash up-front from entities that had lots of it, and then only from plaintiffs (since they are the only ones with a voluntary role in the system).
The poor could sue megacorporations without spending a dime out of their pocket. They'd be paid their per-diem wage for their time in court. They would receive the exact same legal budget as their opponent. In short, they would be on fairly equal footing. Of course, there are a ton of loopholes to close for something like this (no having in-house counsel or researchers or whatever help out with the defense - since that amounts to increasing the budget of the megacorp, etc).
I also want there to be some care about frivolous suits. If justice doesn't cost anybody a dime, then your neighbor is going to drag you to court every time your grass gets taller than they like to see it. Then you're going to drag them to court for dragging you to court, and so on. Petty disputes now end up in the public forum.
Also, we need to avoid exchanging a system that rewards those with money to spare for a system that rewards those with time to spare. Some types of systems that try to promote equality often result in people who actually have jobs not being able to participate in the same way as somebody who has nothing better to do with their life than stand in lines or whatever.
However, I think in general we're after the same thing...
I don't have a problem with that. Why do we need to have our best and brightest devoting their time to the pursuit of law?
The goals of law are JUSTICE and FAIRNESS. You don't get that when one side can drown the other in a sea of motion practice, simply by virtue of having more money.
So, what is important is that both sides have access to the same resources. Why not keep the cost of those resources low?
Yeah - a victory that cost him $200k of his own money - so that he doesn't have to issue a retraction or pay even more of his own money.
Or, maybe if he is lucky he might get reimbursed some or all of it - quite some time after having spent it. Of course, he won't get any interest on the money or anything like that. Most ordinary people would lose their homes in the process of trying to pay these kinds of fees, and I'm sure courts would not reimburse those costs either.
That will teach them!
Europe at least is far better than the US in this regard, but I'd go a step further. I'd envision a system where when a suit is brought a court would require an escrow of funds from the plaintiff if they had greater than a certain amount in assets. Regardless, the attorneys would be paid by the court (for both parties) - it would be illegal for attorneys to receive money from their clients. The fee rate would be set by the court, and the budget for both parties would be the same, and the budget would be based on the nature of the case and the amount at issue. Both parties would then battle it out in court or settle. Individual participants (whether defendents, plaintiffs, witnesses, or jurors) below a certain income level (moderately high) would also be paid by the court a per-diem based on their annual income. In the end the court would assess the loser of the case for the amount of court costs (which now includes all client legal costs and the cost of the time of all parties as well), plus interest sufficient to ensure the government comes out at least even. This would be a public debt that the government would have the power to collect on.
This would ensure that merely being sued would have no negative financial impact on somebody, and that people will think twice before filing frivolous lawsuits. People who are out time and money also don't have to try to badger the other party to pay - the government would pay them as they incur costs, and now the government can use all its usual methods to recoup its loss just as if the losing party didn't pay their taxes/etc.
The bottom line is that the court system needs to stop punishing people (effectively) merely for being sued.
If you consider the money going to the shareholders, then sure, you're right.
However, government contractors aren't run to benefit the shareholders - they're run to benefit the executives. By building empires of lower employees the executives justify their own positions, their large salaries, and they get armies of people they can rule over.
I'd consider any cost beyond the basic time and materials, and minimal overhead for basic facilities, to be "profit" in this sense... Sure, it shows up in the red on the corporate statement, but the only reason companies have black on their statements is to pay for the red that is executive salary, bonuses, and stock.
What employer would tell you WHY they are firing you? They just fire you. At most they would just say they don't require your services. Giving a reason is just giving a potential plaintiff ammo.
If I were in jury duty for a few days it wouldn't be the end of the world. Ditto for taking a week or two vacation. However, it does add up. At the end of the year, do you want to be the guy who got the most done, or the guy with the best reasons for not getting much done?
The lawyers are paid to be there. The judge is paid to be there. The jurors are paid like $5 per day or some crazy amount to be there. Why would I spend a week working for 50 cents a day?
Sure, maybe my employer will keep paying me. But, guess what, I have projects to complete, and they have to be done on time. Nobody cares if I take a week vacation or a week of jury duty or whatever. However, projects still need to be done on time. If I spend a week in a jury box, that means I spend a week of my OWN TIME catching up. So, either way I'm not compensated for that time.
Jurors should be paid based on their annual income on a weekday per-diem basis. There are 52*5 weekdays in a year, so divide annual salary by that number of days, and that is what you get paid to be there. Employers should be required to continue to pay salaried employees for their time on jury duty as well - they aren't hourly. Exceptions can be made for long-duration trials (where reduced pay could be permitted), if the employer carefully documents that all employee responsibilities were adjusted to account for the lost time.
Suddenly maybe people wouldn't have so much disdain for jurors...
You could easily argue that the 10% are among them as well? After all, they seem reluctant to believe in a being whose very existence defies comprehension or understanding.
Logic and rationality are merely mechanisms of converting one set of known-true statements into a larger set of known-true statements. The problem is that everybody starts out with a different set of axioms, and from a logical standpoint they just describe different realities. It is actually impossible to fully determine what set of axioms define the reality we live in. Or, at least, it is impossible for any two observers to agree on them.
If something isn't falsifiable, stating that it is true or false is simply, unscientific.
I doubt that the parent was arguing with that at all. They were simply suggesting that science and religion really deal with completely different domains of knowledge/etc. They are orthogonal.
There is nothing wrong with saying that something is both scientifically true and religiously false, since the meaning of the words "truth" and "false" aren't the same in both cases. Granted, outright contradictions generally don't make sense in the common use of those words, but generally religion and science are applied to different problems so they don't conflict much (or at least ought not to).
You can say that God is scientifically unnecessary to the creation of the universe. Granted, that is still a bit of a statement since I don't think that Hawking's statement in a book really has the weight of the consensus of modern physics, but hey, let's go ahead and assume that his mechanism is plausible. That really isn't the same as a statement that there is scientific proof that the universe was not created by God - unless you could observe the creation of the universe, and observe it from the point of view of a creator that apparently you don't think exists, how could you even prove this?
Now, to say that the claim that God did create the universe is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific is also perfectly valid. That doesn't make it true or false from a scientific perspective. It simply makes the statement irrelevant from a scientific standpoint.
So, let the physicists speculate on the physical causes for the nature of the observable universe. Let the theologians speculate on the metaphysical causes for the same. Rest assured that since the standards of truth and falsehood are different in both disciplines you'll never be able to reconcile them. That doesn't bother me. If I read the Bible it isn't for the purpose of assigning a numeric value to pi...
As long as all other streaming video services on their network are subject to the same fees, then it's still neutral.
I disagree - you are treating video traffic differently from web traffic. That makes it non-neutral.
I'm fine with ISPs charging by the byte, or by the month, or by whatever makes sense (provided that the local utilities commission approves their rate if they are a last-mile provider). I'm fine with charging differently based on QoS settings (that is a given field setting gets treated a certain way and gets a certain charge - not that "video" is treated differently from "web"). Customers should of course be able to tag 100% of their data as realtime max priority and the ISPs would have to treat it as such (and charge accordingly). Customers would also have to designate what QoS levels should be respected for incoming packets from various sources - since they'd have to pay for incoming data. Or perhaps the ISP would just ignore the QoS on incoming packets and instead treat those packets based on the QoS on the outgoing packets on the same connection.
Bottom line is that we need to get away from sending "video" over the internet and get back to sending packets. Telecom companies are dumb pipes - that is it, and that is all they should be allowed to be. If AT&T wants to be an information services provider they can be that - they just need to divest themselves of any last-mile services.
I guess the question is whether rehabilitation is even a reasonable objective in many cases? I think that sometimes the answer is yes, and if you can turn somebody around it certainly is a win/win. This should be pursued.
However, I see the main purpose of prison as deterrence. If there were no negative consequences for committing crimes, there would be a lot more criminals out there. If prison were a nice place to be, then perhaps more people would opt for prison as a lifestyle. As a result, prison HAS to be unpleasant. Punishment in itself is at least partially rehabilitative, since it gives people incentive to not end up back in prison again.
I'm not sure that preventing somebody from committing crime is a legitimate purpose of prison. Sure, it isn't a bad thing - especially if you think you can rehabilitate them.
Sometimes I wonder if we don't need something that is more of a dual-system. Prisons need to be generally less comfortable (less air conditioning/etc - no TV, etc - but not to a point where physical harm is a concern). Rehabilitation is also important - have classrooms where people can learn, as long as they make steady progress. Also, have "graduation standards" for prison - you can not leave prison until you can pass tests showing a high-school level of education and the ability to perform some kind of serious employment (such as a trade). Then criminals will have something to do once they get out.
At the same time, we do need to be careful to avoid giving people incentive to commit petty crimes with the hope of a free education if they lose a job. There is no reason these kinds of classes shouldn't be free to the community at large, actually.
The bottom line is that people should only be in prison if they cause serious harm to society (I'm all for sentencing reform as well, and stopping the drug war). As such, they're really at the mercy of society, and society should act in its own interest, and not the interest of the prisoners except where they coincide.
I dunno - sometimes practicality dictates the implementation, and then you have to pick the algorithm to match.
Suppose hard drive storage is slow, but costs pennies per gigabyte, and RAM is lightning-fast but costs tens of dollars per gigabyte (don't need to use much imagination there).
I need to sort a 1TB file. Algorithm 1 works faster than algorithm 2 on an O(n) basis. However, algorithm 1 requires random access across the file, and algorithm 2 only requires sequential access. In almost any scenario algorithm 2 is going to be much faster, unless you're willing to buy 1 TB of RAM (and then unless the data is already in RAM you still waste a full cycle through the data loading it into RAM).
Now, suppose algorithm 3 is slower than both 1 and 2, but it is already implemented in a library you can link to and save yourself a week's worth of coding, testing, and follow-ups on bugs/etc. If the resulting software is only moderately used, or the sort happens infrequently, then it might be cheaper for the users of your software than paying for an extra week of your time in the license cost.
Many algorithms involve tradeoffs like this. The important thing is for programmers to UNDERSTAND the nature of these tradeoffs and understand the requirements of the software (not just what it needs to do, but in terms of the overall environment). The choice of algorithm and implementation should be a conscious and understood one.
Yup. The detectability is the whole point of quantum crypto.
You don't send secrets over quantum crypto. You send encryption keys, and then if they weren't intercepted you use those keys to send encrypted secrets over a channel of your choosing. If the keys are intercepted you simply discard them - an unused encryption key is just a random number, so nothing is lost.
It almost sounds to me like a bunch of vendors decided to turn quantum crypto into a marketing term, without thinking hard about security. If the devices didn't continuously perform tests that are certain to detect interception per the laws of physics, then the protection is worthless. They're merely depending on using an uncommon line protocol to make interception difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
;Sounds like the OJ Simpson case. Basically a case of an inept judge who was more into publicity than justice. There is no reason that a simple murder trial need take a year.
I'm not quite sure why a 2000 page decision is needed in a trial of this kind, either. The most serious constitutional questions in any democratic court get settled in a dozen pages or so. This case just sounds like it is a straightforward issue of facts.
If the defendants were placed in prison this entire time, then they probably have already served a longer sentence than they might in many democracies (that depends on the seriousness of the crime - you didn't describe the charges in detail so I'm not sure what the likely outcome would be).
Agreed that MS Word isn't suited to 2000 page documents. Even if they didn't want to use something else in most companies the solution would be to simply split the document up and print a bunch of 100 page documents. Actually, most companies don't print 2000 page documents for any purpose, unless they have some requirement to keep accounting records on paper or something in which case they just hit print on their general ledger software and be done with it.
The package manager has no support for repositories of any kind.
I guess it might constitute a package manager in a windows-95ish sort of way, but it is a pretty weak one.
In any case, I have yet to see anybody making use of vanilla android in any practical sense. I'm not sure if it can even run on any real hardware.
Unlike distros like debian or countless other free platforms, android is really just a skeleton of an OS.
Again, I like android, but it still can't claim usability as a FOSS OS.
Well, it could be argued that android alone isn't very functional. It doesn't even have a package manager or market. Who makes an OS without any kind of software management capability at all these days?
Those "optional" google apps pretty much are the only reason anybody runs it.
Don't get me wrong - I love android. However, it has a ways to go before it truly is "open."
Thanks for the info - yup - rate seems to be much higher.
However, keep in mind that we're still talking rates that are maybe 0.1% of the population or so - with a very skewed demographic aspect to them.
If I were black and lived in Detriot no doubt my perspective would be different, and I'd be the first to argue that this should not be the case.
In any case, my point is that US police abuse is neither cause for us to all leave the country, nor cause for us to all just look the other way. It destroys the rule of law and the principles of justice.
Well, there is no reason that the video needs to be made completely public 100% of the time. It merely needs to be recorded.
Likewise, if somebody is going undercover into a gang they wouldn't need to wear a camera strapped to their head.
Perhaps somewhere between zero-accountability for police and nonsensical camera crews travelling with every cop there might be a balance?
Well, the reality is that police do everything he mentioned, but it is only some of the police, and it is relatively infrequent. In the US, you're probably only a little more likely to be abused by a police officer than you are to die in an airplane crash. Generally you have to end up interacting with police for that to happen. Being a criminal of course is the easiest way to end up dealing with the police. However, ticking off a neighbor or an ex-spouse, or just being really unlucky can get you there as well.
I don't think I'd consider this as a reason to not move to the US, unless you also use airline safety statistics to decide what country to live in.
However, to outright dismiss his concerns is to take the opposite extreme. We certainly take airline safety seriously, and this is less of a problem than police corruption. Reforms are clearly needed, since nobody should have any reason to fear anything but due processes if they are accused of a crime.
Suppose you're using a computer that you aren't supposed to install software on. NXClient on a USB stick is all you need to access everything you want. Or, you can set up all kinds of ssh tunnels and client software, and try to keep that all up-to-date using zero-footprint USB editions.
Neatx works just fine for remote access - except when programmers go crazy with effects. I have no idea why a recent thunderbird upgrade causes it to completely refresh the window about 10 times every time I click on a message, but it drives me nuts.
I'd consider eliminating the copilot as long as there is a reliable layer of redundancy.
I'd start by making the planes capable of completely autonomous operation (at least after takeoff - if the pilot drops dead while taxing out of the gate that isn't nearly as big of a problem if you put a dead man's switch in and have it turn on the brakes and cut the engines (while on the ground only - need to be careful too since some gear failures could trick the computer into thinking that it is on the ground)). At that point the pilot himself is already a layer of redundancy.
We should really try to get aircraft to the point where flight crews are completely unnecessary for routine operation. We can still have them as backups, and they can even fly the plane on occasion to maintain proficiency. However, ATC should be able to operate without humans talking on the radio, etc.
We're far closer to this with planes than we are with cars, so might as well start there. It would have the potential to both save money and increase safety.
However, I fully agree that at present a copilot really is a strict requirement. I would not fly on a single-pilot passenger aircraft until AFTER the kinds of technologies I describe above are mature.
I think the problem is that in IT we're used to building machines, and we build them from parts. Often those parts and the product are software, but it is all the same.
If I want to upgrade 1000 computers I need 1000 sticks of RAM and 1000 CPUs. Therefore, if I want to program 1000 pieces of software I must need 1000 units of programmers.
IT leaders lack the ability to assess what they have and work with it. Indeed, "best practices" almost encourage this mentality. What do you deliver? Well, what do the requirements ask for? Never mind if that is the best use of what you have.
There needs to be a balance - a company needs to have strategic goals, but it also needs to make tactical use of the resources that it has.
A friend of mine expressed it well - suppose you are coaching a football (US) team. Do you just write up a playbook without any regard to the players you have, based on studies on the merits of the plays themselves? Suppose that logic dictates that a passing offense is the best option - so you tell your players to start doing passes. Hey, any NFL player ought to be able to be part of a passing offense, right? Well, suppose you have three of the best running backs in the league, but your receivers are all below par? Is that really a smart move? Sure, they can be generalists, but if you focus on what they're good at you'll get far more out of them.
IT managers focus on the projects, and then fit resources to them. They don't say, "hey, we've got 3 people that are the best in the industry at doing X, so is there any business benefit from doing X even though nobody is asking for it now?"
Now, of course there has to be a balance - a company also has to have strategy and not just tactics, and sometimes strategy tells you to trade your star running back. However, we're far from that problem in most of IT.
Uh, that was exactly my suggestion. Except that the loser would reimburse the cost to reduce the public expense part. I didn't require court-appointment - only that the budgets be identical for both sides and the rates regulated.
Yes, I realized that. This is why I mentioned Europe at all.
If you actually read the article, you'll notice that he has not been awarded costs. He has only been grated the opportunity to pursue costs. There is no guarantee that he'll get them, or all of them.
The fact that he faces this risk means that contesting a lawsuit still is a risky proposition, even in Europe.
Again, as I stated the European system is better than the US one in this regard. I just am stating that it is not perfect. Perhaps you disagree.
My proposal would cost a poor (say income less than $200k/yr) plaintiff nothing up-front, and nothing at all if they win. It would also pay the poor person to show up to court, and it would pay for them to have an attorney. That attorney would be paid a reasonable rate regardless of outcome, and wouldn't get 30% of some huge settlement or some nonsense like that.
I specifically thought of the concerns your raise, which is why I suggested that only plaintiffs with means would have to pay to sue. It would mainly be targeted at corporate entities or the rich so that they can't play mass-lawsuit games.
I indicated as much.
However, the various articles did indicate that whether he will receive his costs is uncertain, and that said costs might not make him whole.
Plus, if you have to pay attorneys $200k today, and you might get $200k back two years from now, I'd argue that you are taking a risk of a huge loss, and a guarantee of a moderate loss. $200k today is worth a lot more than $200k two years from now - just ask any lender.
My proposal only required any cash up-front from entities that had lots of it, and then only from plaintiffs (since they are the only ones with a voluntary role in the system).
The poor could sue megacorporations without spending a dime out of their pocket. They'd be paid their per-diem wage for their time in court. They would receive the exact same legal budget as their opponent. In short, they would be on fairly equal footing. Of course, there are a ton of loopholes to close for something like this (no having in-house counsel or researchers or whatever help out with the defense - since that amounts to increasing the budget of the megacorp, etc).
I also want there to be some care about frivolous suits. If justice doesn't cost anybody a dime, then your neighbor is going to drag you to court every time your grass gets taller than they like to see it. Then you're going to drag them to court for dragging you to court, and so on. Petty disputes now end up in the public forum.
Also, we need to avoid exchanging a system that rewards those with money to spare for a system that rewards those with time to spare. Some types of systems that try to promote equality often result in people who actually have jobs not being able to participate in the same way as somebody who has nothing better to do with their life than stand in lines or whatever.
However, I think in general we're after the same thing...
I don't have a problem with that. Why do we need to have our best and brightest devoting their time to the pursuit of law?
The goals of law are JUSTICE and FAIRNESS. You don't get that when one side can drown the other in a sea of motion practice, simply by virtue of having more money.
So, what is important is that both sides have access to the same resources. Why not keep the cost of those resources low?
Yeah - a victory that cost him $200k of his own money - so that he doesn't have to issue a retraction or pay even more of his own money.
Or, maybe if he is lucky he might get reimbursed some or all of it - quite some time after having spent it. Of course, he won't get any interest on the money or anything like that. Most ordinary people would lose their homes in the process of trying to pay these kinds of fees, and I'm sure courts would not reimburse those costs either.
That will teach them!
Europe at least is far better than the US in this regard, but I'd go a step further. I'd envision a system where when a suit is brought a court would require an escrow of funds from the plaintiff if they had greater than a certain amount in assets. Regardless, the attorneys would be paid by the court (for both parties) - it would be illegal for attorneys to receive money from their clients. The fee rate would be set by the court, and the budget for both parties would be the same, and the budget would be based on the nature of the case and the amount at issue. Both parties would then battle it out in court or settle. Individual participants (whether defendents, plaintiffs, witnesses, or jurors) below a certain income level (moderately high) would also be paid by the court a per-diem based on their annual income. In the end the court would assess the loser of the case for the amount of court costs (which now includes all client legal costs and the cost of the time of all parties as well), plus interest sufficient to ensure the government comes out at least even. This would be a public debt that the government would have the power to collect on.
This would ensure that merely being sued would have no negative financial impact on somebody, and that people will think twice before filing frivolous lawsuits. People who are out time and money also don't have to try to badger the other party to pay - the government would pay them as they incur costs, and now the government can use all its usual methods to recoup its loss just as if the losing party didn't pay their taxes/etc.
The bottom line is that the court system needs to stop punishing people (effectively) merely for being sued.
I think it depends on what you consider "profit."
If you consider the money going to the shareholders, then sure, you're right.
However, government contractors aren't run to benefit the shareholders - they're run to benefit the executives. By building empires of lower employees the executives justify their own positions, their large salaries, and they get armies of people they can rule over.
I'd consider any cost beyond the basic time and materials, and minimal overhead for basic facilities, to be "profit" in this sense... Sure, it shows up in the red on the corporate statement, but the only reason companies have black on their statements is to pay for the red that is executive salary, bonuses, and stock.
What employer would tell you WHY they are firing you? They just fire you. At most they would just say they don't require your services. Giving a reason is just giving a potential plaintiff ammo.
If I were in jury duty for a few days it wouldn't be the end of the world. Ditto for taking a week or two vacation. However, it does add up. At the end of the year, do you want to be the guy who got the most done, or the guy with the best reasons for not getting much done?
Ok, look at it from the standpoint of a juror.
The lawyers are paid to be there. The judge is paid to be there. The jurors are paid like $5 per day or some crazy amount to be there. Why would I spend a week working for 50 cents a day?
Sure, maybe my employer will keep paying me. But, guess what, I have projects to complete, and they have to be done on time. Nobody cares if I take a week vacation or a week of jury duty or whatever. However, projects still need to be done on time. If I spend a week in a jury box, that means I spend a week of my OWN TIME catching up. So, either way I'm not compensated for that time.
Jurors should be paid based on their annual income on a weekday per-diem basis. There are 52*5 weekdays in a year, so divide annual salary by that number of days, and that is what you get paid to be there. Employers should be required to continue to pay salaried employees for their time on jury duty as well - they aren't hourly. Exceptions can be made for long-duration trials (where reduced pay could be permitted), if the employer carefully documents that all employee responsibilities were adjusted to account for the lost time.
Suddenly maybe people wouldn't have so much disdain for jurors...
You could easily argue that the 10% are among them as well? After all, they seem reluctant to believe in a being whose very existence defies comprehension or understanding.
Logic and rationality are merely mechanisms of converting one set of known-true statements into a larger set of known-true statements. The problem is that everybody starts out with a different set of axioms, and from a logical standpoint they just describe different realities. It is actually impossible to fully determine what set of axioms define the reality we live in. Or, at least, it is impossible for any two observers to agree on them.
If something isn't falsifiable, stating that it is true or false is simply, unscientific.
I doubt that the parent was arguing with that at all. They were simply suggesting that science and religion really deal with completely different domains of knowledge/etc. They are orthogonal.
There is nothing wrong with saying that something is both scientifically true and religiously false, since the meaning of the words "truth" and "false" aren't the same in both cases. Granted, outright contradictions generally don't make sense in the common use of those words, but generally religion and science are applied to different problems so they don't conflict much (or at least ought not to).
You can say that God is scientifically unnecessary to the creation of the universe. Granted, that is still a bit of a statement since I don't think that Hawking's statement in a book really has the weight of the consensus of modern physics, but hey, let's go ahead and assume that his mechanism is plausible. That really isn't the same as a statement that there is scientific proof that the universe was not created by God - unless you could observe the creation of the universe, and observe it from the point of view of a creator that apparently you don't think exists, how could you even prove this?
Now, to say that the claim that God did create the universe is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific is also perfectly valid. That doesn't make it true or false from a scientific perspective. It simply makes the statement irrelevant from a scientific standpoint.
So, let the physicists speculate on the physical causes for the nature of the observable universe. Let the theologians speculate on the metaphysical causes for the same. Rest assured that since the standards of truth and falsehood are different in both disciplines you'll never be able to reconcile them. That doesn't bother me. If I read the Bible it isn't for the purpose of assigning a numeric value to pi...
As long as all other streaming video services on their network are subject to the same fees, then it's still neutral.
I disagree - you are treating video traffic differently from web traffic. That makes it non-neutral.
I'm fine with ISPs charging by the byte, or by the month, or by whatever makes sense (provided that the local utilities commission approves their rate if they are a last-mile provider). I'm fine with charging differently based on QoS settings (that is a given field setting gets treated a certain way and gets a certain charge - not that "video" is treated differently from "web"). Customers should of course be able to tag 100% of their data as realtime max priority and the ISPs would have to treat it as such (and charge accordingly). Customers would also have to designate what QoS levels should be respected for incoming packets from various sources - since they'd have to pay for incoming data. Or perhaps the ISP would just ignore the QoS on incoming packets and instead treat those packets based on the QoS on the outgoing packets on the same connection.
Bottom line is that we need to get away from sending "video" over the internet and get back to sending packets. Telecom companies are dumb pipes - that is it, and that is all they should be allowed to be. If AT&T wants to be an information services provider they can be that - they just need to divest themselves of any last-mile services.
I guess the question is whether rehabilitation is even a reasonable objective in many cases? I think that sometimes the answer is yes, and if you can turn somebody around it certainly is a win/win. This should be pursued.
However, I see the main purpose of prison as deterrence. If there were no negative consequences for committing crimes, there would be a lot more criminals out there. If prison were a nice place to be, then perhaps more people would opt for prison as a lifestyle. As a result, prison HAS to be unpleasant. Punishment in itself is at least partially rehabilitative, since it gives people incentive to not end up back in prison again.
I'm not sure that preventing somebody from committing crime is a legitimate purpose of prison. Sure, it isn't a bad thing - especially if you think you can rehabilitate them.
Sometimes I wonder if we don't need something that is more of a dual-system. Prisons need to be generally less comfortable (less air conditioning/etc - no TV, etc - but not to a point where physical harm is a concern). Rehabilitation is also important - have classrooms where people can learn, as long as they make steady progress. Also, have "graduation standards" for prison - you can not leave prison until you can pass tests showing a high-school level of education and the ability to perform some kind of serious employment (such as a trade). Then criminals will have something to do once they get out.
At the same time, we do need to be careful to avoid giving people incentive to commit petty crimes with the hope of a free education if they lose a job. There is no reason these kinds of classes shouldn't be free to the community at large, actually.
The bottom line is that people should only be in prison if they cause serious harm to society (I'm all for sentencing reform as well, and stopping the drug war). As such, they're really at the mercy of society, and society should act in its own interest, and not the interest of the prisoners except where they coincide.
I dunno - sometimes practicality dictates the implementation, and then you have to pick the algorithm to match.
Suppose hard drive storage is slow, but costs pennies per gigabyte, and RAM is lightning-fast but costs tens of dollars per gigabyte (don't need to use much imagination there).
I need to sort a 1TB file. Algorithm 1 works faster than algorithm 2 on an O(n) basis. However, algorithm 1 requires random access across the file, and algorithm 2 only requires sequential access. In almost any scenario algorithm 2 is going to be much faster, unless you're willing to buy 1 TB of RAM (and then unless the data is already in RAM you still waste a full cycle through the data loading it into RAM).
Now, suppose algorithm 3 is slower than both 1 and 2, but it is already implemented in a library you can link to and save yourself a week's worth of coding, testing, and follow-ups on bugs/etc. If the resulting software is only moderately used, or the sort happens infrequently, then it might be cheaper for the users of your software than paying for an extra week of your time in the license cost.
Many algorithms involve tradeoffs like this. The important thing is for programmers to UNDERSTAND the nature of these tradeoffs and understand the requirements of the software (not just what it needs to do, but in terms of the overall environment). The choice of algorithm and implementation should be a conscious and understood one.
Yup. The detectability is the whole point of quantum crypto.
You don't send secrets over quantum crypto. You send encryption keys, and then if they weren't intercepted you use those keys to send encrypted secrets over a channel of your choosing. If the keys are intercepted you simply discard them - an unused encryption key is just a random number, so nothing is lost.
It almost sounds to me like a bunch of vendors decided to turn quantum crypto into a marketing term, without thinking hard about security. If the devices didn't continuously perform tests that are certain to detect interception per the laws of physics, then the protection is worthless. They're merely depending on using an uncommon line protocol to make interception difficult.