contempt means you're in jail until you comply. that's the law
Is this law written down somewhere, and was it passed by a legislature and signed by a governor/etc? And, when you violate the law, aren't you entited to a trial by a jury of your peers to determine whether you are in fact guilty of violating the law?
This isn't a criminal case. The guy DOES owe his ex-wife $2.5m. If he's not going to pay because he says he doesn't have it, then he needs to allow access to his financial affairs so that the court can see that he doesn't have it. To not do so is contempt and is imprisonable without charge or further trial.
Agreed.
This is not a flaw of the system.
Here, I disagree. Nobody should be held in prison without being charged with a crime. Contempt simply should be made a crime, and those who commit it should be charged, tried, and punished.
In this case a jury could decide whether there are reasonable grounds to determine that he is witholding payment, and that the original judgement was reasonable enough that it ought to be enforced.
In order for there to be a jury, something needs to be in dispute. In the case of contempt of court, there is nothing in dispute. He was ordered to pay, he didn't pay, end of story.
Except, there was a fact in dispute - where he could pay. Additionally, I don't think that there are any circumstances where a man can be sent to prison for a long term based on a summary judgment without the ruling of a jury (or a guilty plea). That is - other than contempt.
In your little fantasy world, where does that process end? If he ignores the first court order, and that automatically triggers a second trial, what happens when he doesn't like the outcome of that?
Well, the second trial would convict him for a criminal matter - not a civil one. If he sentenced to prison they would just haul him off to prison - whether he likes it or not is irrelevant.
According to your thinking, if someone is convicted of a crime and is sentenced to prison, all they need to do is escape from prison and that would automatically trigger a retrial of the original case in order for them to get sent back to prison.
Hardly. There is already a conviction and judgment on their record, and they can be stuffed right back in prison. Now, if you wanted to charge him with escaping from prison so as to make him stay in prison longer, that certainly should require an additional trial.
My objection isn't the enforcement of judgments. If the plaintif can identify money then the court should order the account frozen and handed over. If the plaintif can identify property it can likewise be siezed. If the defendent refused to testify they can be charged and convicted and punished (if a jury of their peers agrees). Once a jury finds somebody guilty of a crime they can be sentenced, and most criminal sentences do not require cooperation from the defendent to enforce (when they do it is usually in the defendents interest to cooperate - such as when given a suspended sentence).
I'm not suggesting that defiance of court orders should be taken lightly. All I'm suggesting is that nobody should be placed in jail without the agreement of a jury of their peers. It doesn't really sound all that unreasonable, does it?
Yup. It would be far more efficient to just line the people up after araignment and issue summary judgments. However, efficiency isn't our goal here.
If somebody comits contempt, they can be tried for contempt. If they commit contempt during their trial in front of the jury it might have an impact on their verdict (juries are allowed to consider the demeanor of the witnesses). If they're just generally disruptive they can be barred from the courtroom (their attourney would of course remain). It isn't like we need an infinite loop or anything.
On the more general issue, again, maybe we should have a different way of dealing with contempt of court, but making it a crime creates another set of problems: the original trial would have to be put on hold until a decision was reached, and presumably the judge and attorneys present could be called as witnesses. That could further bog down the whole legal process.
The legal process wasn't designed to be efficient - it was designed to be fair and just. If we wanted efficiency a judge would just look at the evidence, talk to anybody they wanted to, and issue a ruling. Almost any trial could probably be disposed of in a few days that way.
In the current case, locking the guy up for 14 years hardly greased the wheels of justice, either.
There is no reason the original trial needs to be held up - the trial can move on without the testimony in question. The punishment for witholding the testimony can then be made appropriate for the effects of witholding it (assuming that a conviction is sustained).
It's no different than being held without bail until a speedy trial.
Except that you can't be held without bail except under certain circumstances (a high risk of flight, or a serious danger to the community). Also, there was no trial at all, let alone a speedy one. So, the current situation is completely different from being held without bail until a speedy trial.
In your situation, there were lots of remedies available besides jailing your ex until she signed some paper. The courts should have the power to simply assign you the title with a lean for half of its value given to your ex. Then you could sell it at will, and evict the current occupants if necessary. Or, the courts should have the power to assign power of attorney to you. Or, the courts should be able to just outright sieze the property, sell it, and distribute the proceeds.
I don't see how contempt needs to be this process that is above trials and juries. If somebody does something wrong, then charge them with a crime, try them, and then punish them if a jury of their peers agrees. What's so hard about that (beyond meeting the basic protections that should be afforded to any accused person)?
Yeah, and I take offense when people call me names. That doesn't mean that I can put them in prison for 14 years.
Interference with court procedures isn't an offense against a judge, or against the courts, or against the country. It is an offense against the people of the United States (or whatever jurisdiction you're in). The punishment should be set by the people - by their elected representatives. Then a jury of one's peers should determine if the law was violated, and then a judge should hand down the sentence that was set by the legislature.
I'm sure the judge sure was ticked. That is completely irrelevant to justice.
For example, what if rather than lying a witness simply refuses to answer questions, or even to show up to testify? Or refuses to turn over evidence?
Then pass a law making those sorts of things against the law. Then when somebody does them, they can be tried for their crimes.
Maybe the current procedure isn't the best imaginable, but I'm not sure that a jury trial is the solution.
Why not? For some reason it is the constitutional right of every citizen in almost every civilized nation to be tried by a jury of their peers before being punished for commiting a crime. Juries aren't perfect, but their drawbacks are far superior to the alternatives.
Why not have a trial? Why not have the court provide evidence that this guy is lying, and then have him convicted and punished appropriately?
Suppose he had killed his ex-wife - he could actually spend less time in prison, and he also wouldn't have had to pay her the money. How is merely concealing his wealth (assuming he was doing this) worse than murder?
However, in this case there doesn't appear to be any evidence that he can actually produce the property at stake. If you're going to put somebody in prison there ought to be evidence to back this up. If you have evidence, then you should have no trouble convincing a jury to back up the sentence with a verdict.
Contempt of court should be a crime exactly like any other crime. If you commit it then you must be charged and tried and a jury should decide your fate.
Otherwise if a judge is ticked at you they can basically toss you in prison and your only recourse is an appeal. If judges and appeals were so infallible, then why is it the right of every citizen in every civilized nation to be tried by a jury of their peers?
If a man claims not to have $2 million (and we assume that if he does he isn't stupid enough to hold it in bank accounts that can be easily traced to him), how on Earth do you prove he's lying "beyond reasonable doubt"?
Yeah, and it can be hard to prove that somebody is a terrorist as well. Does that mean that gitmo is a perfectly reasonable solution?
Yes, it is quite unfortunate that in order to convict somebody of a crime you actually need to have some proof. That is, it is unfortunate up until the point where you are accused of a crime you didn't commit. Then it turns out to be pretty handy.
If there is evidence the guy lied, then try and punish him. If there is no evidence, let him go. It is better to set the gulity free than to punish the innocent.
Then when she sued for divorce he hid all his money in some offshore company and pretended it was lost in a "bad investment". It was a blatant lie. This guy deserves to rot in prison until he decides to come clean.
No, he deserves to be charged with purjury, which is the crime of lying under oath. Then a jury needs to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did in fact lie. Then he gets punished per the laws passed by the appropriate legislative body (which probably won't include 14 year prison sentences).
People should go to jail for committing crimes. Crimes should be established by laws passed by legislative bodies. Whether somebody has committed a serious crime should be determined by a jury of their peers.
This shouldn't be a hard matter. The wife can get a civil judgement based upon a preponderance of the evidence (it is more likely that he has $2.5M than not).
Then she can seek to enforce it, and ask him to tesify about the location of the money.
He can say that it doesn't exist or refuse to testify. So, then he can be charged with interference with collection of a lawful debt or perjury or whatever the crime is.
Then a jury needs to decide if there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he lied. He does not need to prove a negative - the state needs to prove that he lied, or witheld information about money that actually exists.
I'm all for punishing what is currently called contempt, but it needs to be a criminal charge and handled like any other criminal charge. If a reporter refuses to divulge his sources we can make that a crime, and punish him accordingly. However, it is wrong to turn that into a life sentence.
Does anybody else see this distinction as being rather weak?
IMHO, prison time should require a jury verdict to sustain it. I'm all for punishing people for perjury or interference with the functioning of the courts, but that should be a criminal charge like any other.
This guy spent 14 years in prison based solely on the decision of a single judge, without any kind of trial. That is just over the top.
I don't get contempt. Why should judges have the power to imprison people at all?
By all means, make lying to a judge a crime. Then when somebody does it, they are charged with it, a jury rules against them, and then they are sentenced to a finite prison term.
Contempt of court essentially allows people to be imprisoned without the consent of a jury - that is just wrong.
Ok, so "stealing" $2.5M from your ex-wife carries a 14 year prison sentence, but robbing a bank of a similar sum probably carries a smaller punishment. How exactly is that just?
How is it that refusing to testify to a court should carry a lifetime prison sentence (if the judge feels so inclined)?
You cannot prove a negative. EVERYTHING exists if you do not assume assertions of a positive nature are false. That include unicorns, martians, Vishnu, honest politicians, and every other idea contradictory to reason ever asserted as true. Thus, there is a great difference between "x exists" and "x does not exist", because if there was not, you'd be opening the floodgates of anything even remotely possible.
Agreed. However, that still doesn't mean that you've effectively shown that none of those things exist. Just because the limitations of logic are inconvenient doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Look, if you want to believe that there are no gods, or unicorns, or whatever, by all means feel free to do so. However, don't pretend that your choice to do so somehow places you in the lofty elites of those who are "purely rational." You see no evidence and conclude A, and somebody else sees no evidence and concludes B. Neither conclusion follows from the evidence, and while you can feel free to hate the B crowd to me it seems like a waste of energy...
I'm quite aware of the fact that the XO contributed greatly to the success of the Netbook.
However, it really just illustrates the problems with OLPC. The competition was able to develop a product, sold at a cost of $100 more (or $100 less depending on how you look at it), and take over the market.
Ultimately OLPC became more about idealism than pragmatism. And yet, they still compromised the design to bow to Redmond - so it wasn't even idealistic.
Lack of proof for IS proof against. In the absence of any proof ether way, the rational assumption is the assertion is false. Something doesn't get to be "maybe" or "probably true" until there is extraordinary evidence for it.
As a matter of principle I'd say that the onus is on somebody making an assertion to defend their assertion. However, this does not in itself convey rationality or non-rationality to an assertion.
For example, if lack of proof for IS proof against, let me make the assertion that there is no god. I have no proof in favor of this assertion. Therefore, it must be untrue, and there is a god.
This kind of thing doesn't get you anywhere. Look, the whole matter is just silly - you can't prove that the chair you're sitting on exists, so how do you think you're going to prove that God does or doesn't exist using logical argument?
Yup - the give one get one was a bad idea. The idea was that an OLPC was so nice to have that rich people would pay double to get one - that just wasn't the case. Sure, they should have definintely made it easy to donate towards giving one away (and in fractional values less than one whole unit), but they should also have sold them to anybody willing to pay for one.
The whole "if they want one they can pay for two" thing just caused people to not pay for any, and it lowered their production volumes which worked against them as well. As you said, if this became one of the top 5 selling computers in the first world it would have been much easier to sell it in the 3rd world, and maybe they could actually have sold it for $100.
Not being able to make it as cheap as was originally planned also killed them. Once you get into the $200 range you're almost at the point of competing with Netbooks (which, amazingly enough, are actually sold at Walmart).
Absolutely - and those folks out digging ditches and destroying their backs for $10/hr are doing it out of the sheer desire to be of service, and it certanly has nothing to do with the fact that they haven't been able to find a job doing anything else.
That guy in Walmart that hands you your shopping cart clearly dreamed about doing that with his life when he was growing up.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for finding a source of income that also allows you to generally enjoy your job. I'd say that for the most part I'm happy with my job - even if not all aspects of it are what I'd otherwise choose. However, most people do not have the job options that I have. Many people end up slaving 35 hours per week on a wage they can barely afford to live on with no access to health insurance. That certainly isn't because they didn't come to the realization that there are other things they'd rather be doing. The problem is that the world only needs so many senators, engineers, well-paid artists, athletes, lawyers, doctors, astronauts, and so on, so unless you're REALLY good at one of those careers you end up having to settle for something else.
It's interesting how you totally filtered out the part I wrote about enjoying menial jobs as a service to humanity.
Nope - I read it clearly. You're welcome to stop by and mow my lawn as a service to humanity anytime you'd like. Actually, I extend that offer to everybody. And yet, for some odd reason, I still find myself mowing my lawn.
My point is that what you're saying sounds nice and all, but nobody in the real world would actually live that way.
Couldn't agree more - I don't really care for MMOs that force reliance on groups to generally have fun. I'm willing to sacrifice some levelling for being a little more of a loner. When I do take part in group activities I try to do ones that don't really leave the group depending on me too much - so that I can cut and run at any time.
I live in the real world. If something comes up that I need to take care of, well, I'm going to be taking care of it. If that means I send a message to my group to say "gotta run" and then disconnect - we'll, that's fine by me.
So, I avoid games that do forced grouping, and when I am in a group setting it is usually a social thing (people doing the same thing together - maybe dividing chores a little but where if everybody stopped working together everybody could still get the job done alone). I'm always up-front about real-life. As a result, I generally have fun, and people are happy to see me, and don't mind seeing me go.
Too many MMOs are designed for people how have hours on end to dedicate to the game, and who can get away without having any interruptions at all.
Have you given thought to joining a commune? They work really well. At least they do until they realize that nobody is taking out the trash since everybody wants to be an artist...
The only people I know who would be doing what they're doing for work if they were independantly wealthy, are independantly wealthy.
The alternative being for the police to stand by, have a coffee and a doughnut while the organisers assemble the 30' high speaker silos and wait until there are 200 ravers on the site before intervening.
That would be terrible! The next thing you know somebody is going to suggest that in order to arrest somebody for shoplifting you need to wait until they actually put something into their pocket, as opposed to arresting them when they look at an item on the shelf in the wrong way.
I think that as a general principle you can't arrest people for committing a crime unless there is actually some evidence that a crime is at least being planned. I don't think a BBQ grill and a 10 m^2 tent counts.
Sure, if they had a truck with 30' speaker enclosures that they were unloading I'd say they at least had a case.
Unless there is some law in the UK that states you can't have an assembly of 15 people in a field (which it sounds like they were not trespassing on), I don't see how there can be any grounds to break things up. Sure, maybe there have been raves in that field before, but unless they were linked to the individuals in question I can't see how anything like this is justified.
Slashdot Mirror
contempt means you're in jail until you comply. that's the law
Is this law written down somewhere, and was it passed by a legislature and signed by a governor/etc? And, when you violate the law, aren't you entited to a trial by a jury of your peers to determine whether you are in fact guilty of violating the law?
This isn't a criminal case. The guy DOES owe his ex-wife $2.5m. If he's not going to pay because he says he doesn't have it, then he needs to allow access to his financial affairs so that the court can see that he doesn't have it. To not do so is contempt and is imprisonable without charge or further trial.
Agreed.
This is not a flaw of the system.
Here, I disagree. Nobody should be held in prison without being charged with a crime. Contempt simply should be made a crime, and those who commit it should be charged, tried, and punished.
In this case a jury could decide whether there are reasonable grounds to determine that he is witholding payment, and that the original judgement was reasonable enough that it ought to be enforced.
In order for there to be a jury, something needs to be in dispute. In the case of contempt of court, there is nothing in dispute. He was ordered to pay, he didn't pay, end of story.
Except, there was a fact in dispute - where he could pay. Additionally, I don't think that there are any circumstances where a man can be sent to prison for a long term based on a summary judgment without the ruling of a jury (or a guilty plea). That is - other than contempt.
In your little fantasy world, where does that process end? If he ignores the first court order, and that automatically triggers a second trial, what happens when he doesn't like the outcome of that?
Well, the second trial would convict him for a criminal matter - not a civil one. If he sentenced to prison they would just haul him off to prison - whether he likes it or not is irrelevant.
According to your thinking, if someone is convicted of a crime and is sentenced to prison, all they need to do is escape from prison and that would automatically trigger a retrial of the original case in order for them to get sent back to prison.
Hardly. There is already a conviction and judgment on their record, and they can be stuffed right back in prison. Now, if you wanted to charge him with escaping from prison so as to make him stay in prison longer, that certainly should require an additional trial.
My objection isn't the enforcement of judgments. If the plaintif can identify money then the court should order the account frozen and handed over. If the plaintif can identify property it can likewise be siezed. If the defendent refused to testify they can be charged and convicted and punished (if a jury of their peers agrees). Once a jury finds somebody guilty of a crime they can be sentenced, and most criminal sentences do not require cooperation from the defendent to enforce (when they do it is usually in the defendents interest to cooperate - such as when given a suspended sentence).
I'm not suggesting that defiance of court orders should be taken lightly. All I'm suggesting is that nobody should be placed in jail without the agreement of a jury of their peers. It doesn't really sound all that unreasonable, does it?
Yup. It would be far more efficient to just line the people up after araignment and issue summary judgments. However, efficiency isn't our goal here.
If somebody comits contempt, they can be tried for contempt. If they commit contempt during their trial in front of the jury it might have an impact on their verdict (juries are allowed to consider the demeanor of the witnesses). If they're just generally disruptive they can be barred from the courtroom (their attourney would of course remain). It isn't like we need an infinite loop or anything.
Sure, it is less efficient, but it is more just.
On the more general issue, again, maybe we should have a different way of dealing with contempt of court, but making it a crime creates another set of problems: the original trial would have to be put on hold until a decision was reached, and presumably the judge and attorneys present could be called as witnesses. That could further bog down the whole legal process.
The legal process wasn't designed to be efficient - it was designed to be fair and just. If we wanted efficiency a judge would just look at the evidence, talk to anybody they wanted to, and issue a ruling. Almost any trial could probably be disposed of in a few days that way.
In the current case, locking the guy up for 14 years hardly greased the wheels of justice, either.
There is no reason the original trial needs to be held up - the trial can move on without the testimony in question. The punishment for witholding the testimony can then be made appropriate for the effects of witholding it (assuming that a conviction is sustained).
It's no different than being held without bail until a speedy trial.
Except that you can't be held without bail except under certain circumstances (a high risk of flight, or a serious danger to the community). Also, there was no trial at all, let alone a speedy one. So, the current situation is completely different from being held without bail until a speedy trial.
In your situation, there were lots of remedies available besides jailing your ex until she signed some paper. The courts should have the power to simply assign you the title with a lean for half of its value given to your ex. Then you could sell it at will, and evict the current occupants if necessary. Or, the courts should have the power to assign power of attorney to you. Or, the courts should be able to just outright sieze the property, sell it, and distribute the proceeds.
I don't see how contempt needs to be this process that is above trials and juries. If somebody does something wrong, then charge them with a crime, try them, and then punish them if a jury of their peers agrees. What's so hard about that (beyond meeting the basic protections that should be afforded to any accused person)?
Yeah, and I take offense when people call me names. That doesn't mean that I can put them in prison for 14 years.
Interference with court procedures isn't an offense against a judge, or against the courts, or against the country. It is an offense against the people of the United States (or whatever jurisdiction you're in). The punishment should be set by the people - by their elected representatives. Then a jury of one's peers should determine if the law was violated, and then a judge should hand down the sentence that was set by the legislature.
I'm sure the judge sure was ticked. That is completely irrelevant to justice.
You can appeal a conviction also. So, why do we need juries?
We need them because the power of the courts need to be held in check by the citizenry. It is not merely enough to have an avenue of appeal.
For example, what if rather than lying a witness simply refuses to answer questions, or even to show up to testify? Or refuses to turn over evidence?
Then pass a law making those sorts of things against the law. Then when somebody does them, they can be tried for their crimes.
Maybe the current procedure isn't the best imaginable, but I'm not sure that a jury trial is the solution.
Why not? For some reason it is the constitutional right of every citizen in almost every civilized nation to be tried by a jury of their peers before being punished for commiting a crime. Juries aren't perfect, but their drawbacks are far superior to the alternatives.
Why not have a trial? Why not have the court provide evidence that this guy is lying, and then have him convicted and punished appropriately?
Suppose he had killed his ex-wife - he could actually spend less time in prison, and he also wouldn't have had to pay her the money. How is merely concealing his wealth (assuming he was doing this) worse than murder?
However, in this case there doesn't appear to be any evidence that he can actually produce the property at stake. If you're going to put somebody in prison there ought to be evidence to back this up. If you have evidence, then you should have no trouble convincing a jury to back up the sentence with a verdict.
Contempt of court should be a crime exactly like any other crime. If you commit it then you must be charged and tried and a jury should decide your fate.
Otherwise if a judge is ticked at you they can basically toss you in prison and your only recourse is an appeal. If judges and appeals were so infallible, then why is it the right of every citizen in every civilized nation to be tried by a jury of their peers?
If a man claims not to have $2 million (and we assume that if he does he isn't stupid enough to hold it in bank accounts that can be easily traced to him), how on Earth do you prove he's lying "beyond reasonable doubt"?
Yeah, and it can be hard to prove that somebody is a terrorist as well. Does that mean that gitmo is a perfectly reasonable solution?
Yes, it is quite unfortunate that in order to convict somebody of a crime you actually need to have some proof. That is, it is unfortunate up until the point where you are accused of a crime you didn't commit. Then it turns out to be pretty handy.
If there is evidence the guy lied, then try and punish him. If there is no evidence, let him go. It is better to set the gulity free than to punish the innocent.
Then when she sued for divorce he hid all his money in some offshore company and pretended it was lost in a "bad investment". It was a blatant lie. This guy deserves to rot in prison until he decides to come clean.
No, he deserves to be charged with purjury, which is the crime of lying under oath. Then a jury needs to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did in fact lie. Then he gets punished per the laws passed by the appropriate legislative body (which probably won't include 14 year prison sentences).
People should go to jail for committing crimes. Crimes should be established by laws passed by legislative bodies. Whether somebody has committed a serious crime should be determined by a jury of their peers.
This shouldn't be a hard matter. The wife can get a civil judgement based upon a preponderance of the evidence (it is more likely that he has $2.5M than not).
Then she can seek to enforce it, and ask him to tesify about the location of the money.
He can say that it doesn't exist or refuse to testify. So, then he can be charged with interference with collection of a lawful debt or perjury or whatever the crime is.
Then a jury needs to decide if there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he lied. He does not need to prove a negative - the state needs to prove that he lied, or witheld information about money that actually exists.
I'm all for punishing what is currently called contempt, but it needs to be a criminal charge and handled like any other criminal charge. If a reporter refuses to divulge his sources we can make that a crime, and punish him accordingly. However, it is wrong to turn that into a life sentence.
Does anybody else see this distinction as being rather weak?
IMHO, prison time should require a jury verdict to sustain it. I'm all for punishing people for perjury or interference with the functioning of the courts, but that should be a criminal charge like any other.
This guy spent 14 years in prison based solely on the decision of a single judge, without any kind of trial. That is just over the top.
I don't get contempt. Why should judges have the power to imprison people at all?
By all means, make lying to a judge a crime. Then when somebody does it, they are charged with it, a jury rules against them, and then they are sentenced to a finite prison term.
Contempt of court essentially allows people to be imprisoned without the consent of a jury - that is just wrong.
Ok, so "stealing" $2.5M from your ex-wife carries a 14 year prison sentence, but robbing a bank of a similar sum probably carries a smaller punishment. How exactly is that just?
How is it that refusing to testify to a court should carry a lifetime prison sentence (if the judge feels so inclined)?
You cannot prove a negative. EVERYTHING exists if you do not assume assertions of a positive nature are false. That include unicorns, martians, Vishnu, honest politicians, and every other idea contradictory to reason ever asserted as true. Thus, there is a great difference between "x exists" and "x does not exist", because if there was not, you'd be opening the floodgates of anything even remotely possible.
Agreed. However, that still doesn't mean that you've effectively shown that none of those things exist. Just because the limitations of logic are inconvenient doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Look, if you want to believe that there are no gods, or unicorns, or whatever, by all means feel free to do so. However, don't pretend that your choice to do so somehow places you in the lofty elites of those who are "purely rational." You see no evidence and conclude A, and somebody else sees no evidence and concludes B. Neither conclusion follows from the evidence, and while you can feel free to hate the B crowd to me it seems like a waste of energy...
I'm quite aware of the fact that the XO contributed greatly to the success of the Netbook.
However, it really just illustrates the problems with OLPC. The competition was able to develop a product, sold at a cost of $100 more (or $100 less depending on how you look at it), and take over the market.
Ultimately OLPC became more about idealism than pragmatism. And yet, they still compromised the design to bow to Redmond - so it wasn't even idealistic.
Lack of proof for IS proof against. In the absence of any proof ether way, the rational assumption is the assertion is false. Something doesn't get to be "maybe" or "probably true" until there is extraordinary evidence for it.
As a matter of principle I'd say that the onus is on somebody making an assertion to defend their assertion. However, this does not in itself convey rationality or non-rationality to an assertion.
For example, if lack of proof for IS proof against, let me make the assertion that there is no god. I have no proof in favor of this assertion. Therefore, it must be untrue, and there is a god.
This kind of thing doesn't get you anywhere. Look, the whole matter is just silly - you can't prove that the chair you're sitting on exists, so how do you think you're going to prove that God does or doesn't exist using logical argument?
Yup - the give one get one was a bad idea. The idea was that an OLPC was so nice to have that rich people would pay double to get one - that just wasn't the case. Sure, they should have definintely made it easy to donate towards giving one away (and in fractional values less than one whole unit), but they should also have sold them to anybody willing to pay for one.
The whole "if they want one they can pay for two" thing just caused people to not pay for any, and it lowered their production volumes which worked against them as well. As you said, if this became one of the top 5 selling computers in the first world it would have been much easier to sell it in the 3rd world, and maybe they could actually have sold it for $100.
Not being able to make it as cheap as was originally planned also killed them. Once you get into the $200 range you're almost at the point of competing with Netbooks (which, amazingly enough, are actually sold at Walmart).
Absolutely - and those folks out digging ditches and destroying their backs for $10/hr are doing it out of the sheer desire to be of service, and it certanly has nothing to do with the fact that they haven't been able to find a job doing anything else.
That guy in Walmart that hands you your shopping cart clearly dreamed about doing that with his life when he was growing up.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for finding a source of income that also allows you to generally enjoy your job. I'd say that for the most part I'm happy with my job - even if not all aspects of it are what I'd otherwise choose. However, most people do not have the job options that I have. Many people end up slaving 35 hours per week on a wage they can barely afford to live on with no access to health insurance. That certainly isn't because they didn't come to the realization that there are other things they'd rather be doing. The problem is that the world only needs so many senators, engineers, well-paid artists, athletes, lawyers, doctors, astronauts, and so on, so unless you're REALLY good at one of those careers you end up having to settle for something else.
It's interesting how you totally filtered out the part I wrote about enjoying menial jobs as a service to humanity.
Nope - I read it clearly. You're welcome to stop by and mow my lawn as a service to humanity anytime you'd like. Actually, I extend that offer to everybody. And yet, for some odd reason, I still find myself mowing my lawn.
My point is that what you're saying sounds nice and all, but nobody in the real world would actually live that way.
Couldn't agree more - I don't really care for MMOs that force reliance on groups to generally have fun. I'm willing to sacrifice some levelling for being a little more of a loner. When I do take part in group activities I try to do ones that don't really leave the group depending on me too much - so that I can cut and run at any time.
I live in the real world. If something comes up that I need to take care of, well, I'm going to be taking care of it. If that means I send a message to my group to say "gotta run" and then disconnect - we'll, that's fine by me.
So, I avoid games that do forced grouping, and when I am in a group setting it is usually a social thing (people doing the same thing together - maybe dividing chores a little but where if everybody stopped working together everybody could still get the job done alone). I'm always up-front about real-life. As a result, I generally have fun, and people are happy to see me, and don't mind seeing me go.
Too many MMOs are designed for people how have hours on end to dedicate to the game, and who can get away without having any interruptions at all.
Have you given thought to joining a commune? They work really well. At least they do until they realize that nobody is taking out the trash since everybody wants to be an artist...
The only people I know who would be doing what they're doing for work if they were independantly wealthy, are independantly wealthy.
The alternative being for the police to stand by, have a coffee and a doughnut while the organisers assemble the 30' high speaker silos and wait until there are 200 ravers on the site before intervening.
That would be terrible! The next thing you know somebody is going to suggest that in order to arrest somebody for shoplifting you need to wait until they actually put something into their pocket, as opposed to arresting them when they look at an item on the shelf in the wrong way.
I think that as a general principle you can't arrest people for committing a crime unless there is actually some evidence that a crime is at least being planned. I don't think a BBQ grill and a 10 m^2 tent counts.
Sure, if they had a truck with 30' speaker enclosures that they were unloading I'd say they at least had a case.
Unless there is some law in the UK that states you can't have an assembly of 15 people in a field (which it sounds like they were not trespassing on), I don't see how there can be any grounds to break things up. Sure, maybe there have been raves in that field before, but unless they were linked to the individuals in question I can't see how anything like this is justified.