Now if I stand outside that same person's house with a sign that says God hates them and God will burn them in Hell, that's perfectly fine for some reason.
Well, yes - you're no longer threatening them. You're stating that you believe a third party is threatening them. You likewise wouldn't be arrested if you held up signs saying "Joe Blogs down the road hates gays and is going to burn them" - except, probably, to stop you libeling Joe Blogs. Sadly, I don't think God sues for libel.
If I remember correctly, the grandfather and one of his sorcerous pals spent a year or so preventing the main character's actions from triggering a new ice age.
i-devices don't seem to drop in price like everything else in the tech world, they just gain in performance.
That's because i-devices are made by one supplier. When they start selling the next model, they discontinue the previous. They're removed from the market before their price begins to appreciatively decrease.
I own all of a physical book. I'm restricted from doing some things with it (copying) by the law of my country. In the same way, I own all of a knife. I'm restricted from doing some things with it (stabbing people) by the law of my country. The fact that the law restricts what I do with my possessions in no way prevents them from being my possessions.
Motorola successfully argued that they did not have to license a FRAND patent to Apple unless Apple paid damages above and beyond the cost of the standard FRAND license rate issued to everyone else for 'past' infringement
That seems eminently sensible to me. Otherwise, what would be the disincentive for ignoring FRAND licenses? If what you seem to endorse was the case, and I was a new startup, I'd just ignore FRAND patents for as long as I could. When I finally got called on it, it'd be no worse for me - and I'd have had all those years longer with my money, and kept costs down during the delicate phase of launching a new product.
If all the courts could do was require standard payment, why would anyone, ever pay for FRAND patents without being compelled to by the court?
If you're on the jury, on a case based on an unjust law, then all the other defenses have already been defeated.
That means that the choice to nullify is going to be subjective, based on your own morality. That's as it should be; nullification is based on an appeal to morality of the ordinary citizen.
Personally, I'd vote nullification for any count that involved consensual or victimless crimes (drug possession, sale, sexual deviancy - although that last one's not being brought to trial much lately)
I've lost the ability to summon a paper book from the ether if my phone is taken off me unexpectedly, and the desire to go purchase a paper book I already have a copy of just to satisfy bureaucratic nonsense.
Perhaps you should consider the fact that with the digital sales of books, mistakes are much more easily made.
Perhaps you should consider the fact that if I own something, the creator has no right to take it back just to correct a "mistake". If they made a mistake, they need to pay for it.
a simple mistake to take place, like poor editing, scanning, and spelling that you find in ebooks
Because ebooks are produced entirely separately to physical books. They don't just edit it once and produce two separate formats, no, they go through the entire process twice.
I'd like to see the argument you put up when a stolen car you buy gets taken away from you.
What, like for instance, if I woke up in the morning, and Ford's come and taken the car I bought from them because they didn't license a fuel-injection patent? But hey, they refunded me my money - I could go buy the car again from a source with a proper license.
Two consenting adults, right?
Yeah, because being stolen from is such an awesome example of consent.
The system isn't inherently racially biased. In some subset of cases (including some where jury nullification is used) the racial bias of the participants derails justice. Yes, racial bias can be shown in the courtroom. No, its not a result of jury nullification. Absent nullification, a racist judge, or legislators can still abuse the system.
However, jury nullification can only be used to excuse someone from the law - jury nullification doesn't allow the jury to insist on a guilty verdict absent any laws to charge the defendant with breaking. A guilty verdict can be appealed - a not guilty verdict cannot be, due to double jeopardy. The standards of evidence require "beyond reasonable doubt", not "preponderance of evidence", meaning that it's easier for a defendant to defend than it is for a prosecutor to prosecute.
The system is setup to prefer not guilty verdicts, in order to reduce the likelihood of ever convicting an innocent. Unlike, say, the Jim Crow laws, jury nullification doesn't exist for the purposes of racial discrimination, even if its been used that way on occasion.
You pay for police service, fire service, protection from foreign enemies, insurance against money loss, unemployment if you can't get a job, medical assistance for those that are retired/too poor to afford it, food if you cannot afford it, infrastructure, and various environmental and consumer protections...For all the government does, and all the people that sacrifice years of their lives in return for compensation which you have already provided so that you can have all of these things, I think you can sacrifice a few weeks without any reasonable compensation.
Fixed that for you.
I believe in jury duty. However, it's obvious that governments don't. If they did, they'd require employers to continue to pay their employees throughout the jury process, and compensate them for the money thus spent at tax time. As it is, you can see precisely the import that government places in jury duty by looking at the money they spend on it - diddly squat.
Have you ever been on jury duty? I was on a case that ran for a week. For about 80% of the time, we weren't in the courtroom - the lawyers were arguing about legal technicalities that the jury wasn't allowed to hear before the judge ruled who was right. On a number of days, we came in, went into the court for its opening, went straight to the jury room, and stayed there for the entire day, returning to the court only for its close at the end of the day. It was even a fairly open and shut case as far as the jury was concerned. And it was bloody boring. If I hadn't had some sort of way to pass the time, I would have gone bonkers. As it was, I brought a book. These days, since I tend to read ebooks on my phone, I would not be impressed if they took it away and made me sit and stare at a wall all day.
Jury nullification is designed to be a check on the power of the state, not a check on the power of the jury. There are other tools for dealing with those sort of biases - jury selection, change of venue, etc. If an outcome like the above is given, the question should be "why was there an all-white jury in a race crime" and "if no suitable jury could be found locally, why wasn't the trial moved to an area where a dispassionate jury could be recruited?"
Slashdot Mirror
Now if I stand outside that same person's house with a sign that says God hates them and God will burn them in Hell, that's perfectly fine for some reason.
Well, yes - you're no longer threatening them. You're stating that you believe a third party is threatening them. You likewise wouldn't be arrested if you held up signs saying "Joe Blogs down the road hates gays and is going to burn them" - except, probably, to stop you libeling Joe Blogs. Sadly, I don't think God sues for libel.
http://www.projectionpoint.com/
There you go. I can even read articles for you. Do you need me to hold your hand while you cross the road too?
If I remember correctly, the grandfather and one of his sorcerous pals spent a year or so preventing the main character's actions from triggering a new ice age.
Bull. There are far more people driving with kids in the car than with phones
I dunno where the poll was (TFA just mentions "a website"), I was just creating a distinction between a scientific study, and what these guys did.
It's not a study. It's an online poll. The participants self-selected
As long as your logic is the exact same logic as intended by the author of the language.
Yeah, pass. Support, fine; enforce, see ya.
more recent techologies that enforce a clearer (eg DRY, separation of content and logic etc) way of thinking.
Yes, please give me more programming languages that enforce a way of thinking on me.
i-devices don't seem to drop in price like everything else in the tech world, they just gain in performance.
That's because i-devices are made by one supplier. When they start selling the next model, they discontinue the previous. They're removed from the market before their price begins to appreciatively decrease.
Why is that sad?
I own all of a physical book. I'm restricted from doing some things with it (copying) by the law of my country. In the same way, I own all of a knife. I'm restricted from doing some things with it (stabbing people) by the law of my country. The fact that the law restricts what I do with my possessions in no way prevents them from being my possessions.
No, I don't. Does the state also pick up the tab for those employed in businesses smaller than 10 people? Or the self-employed?
Motorola successfully argued that they did not have to license a FRAND patent to Apple unless Apple paid damages above and beyond the cost of the standard FRAND license rate issued to everyone else for 'past' infringement
That seems eminently sensible to me. Otherwise, what would be the disincentive for ignoring FRAND licenses? If what you seem to endorse was the case, and I was a new startup, I'd just ignore FRAND patents for as long as I could. When I finally got called on it, it'd be no worse for me - and I'd have had all those years longer with my money, and kept costs down during the delicate phase of launching a new product.
If all the courts could do was require standard payment, why would anyone, ever pay for FRAND patents without being compelled to by the court?
If you're on the jury, on a case based on an unjust law, then all the other defenses have already been defeated.
That means that the choice to nullify is going to be subjective, based on your own morality. That's as it should be; nullification is based on an appeal to morality of the ordinary citizen.
Personally, I'd vote nullification for any count that involved consensual or victimless crimes (drug possession, sale, sexual deviancy - although that last one's not being brought to trial much lately)
Having your phone taken away from you when summoned to jury duty is hardly unexpected
Uh-huh. Because jurors have their phones taken away as a matter of course, and don't make inane posts on twitter that get them featured on slashdot.
And buying a book you already have is stupid.
Yes, thank you for repeating what I said.
I don't know why you're even discussing the subject. As an illiterate, you surely have little use for books.
I've lost the ability to summon a paper book from the ether if my phone is taken off me unexpectedly, and the desire to go purchase a paper book I already have a copy of just to satisfy bureaucratic nonsense.
Because this is what you're doing: http://xkcd.com/605/
So they should stop hosting it. Great.
What they shouldn't do is break into other peoples' property, and take their stuff.
Perhaps you should consider the fact that with the digital sales of books, mistakes are much more easily made.
Perhaps you should consider the fact that if I own something, the creator has no right to take it back just to correct a "mistake". If they made a mistake, they need to pay for it.
a simple mistake to take place, like poor editing, scanning, and spelling that you find in ebooks
Because ebooks are produced entirely separately to physical books. They don't just edit it once and produce two separate formats, no, they go through the entire process twice.
I'd like to see the argument you put up when a stolen car you buy gets taken away from you.
What, like for instance, if I woke up in the morning, and Ford's come and taken the car I bought from them because they didn't license a fuel-injection patent? But hey, they refunded me my money - I could go buy the car again from a source with a proper license.
Two consenting adults, right?
Yeah, because being stolen from is such an awesome example of consent.
The system isn't inherently racially biased. In some subset of cases (including some where jury nullification is used) the racial bias of the participants derails justice. Yes, racial bias can be shown in the courtroom. No, its not a result of jury nullification. Absent nullification, a racist judge, or legislators can still abuse the system.
However, jury nullification can only be used to excuse someone from the law - jury nullification doesn't allow the jury to insist on a guilty verdict absent any laws to charge the defendant with breaking. A guilty verdict can be appealed - a not guilty verdict cannot be, due to double jeopardy. The standards of evidence require "beyond reasonable doubt", not "preponderance of evidence", meaning that it's easier for a defendant to defend than it is for a prosecutor to prosecute.
The system is setup to prefer not guilty verdicts, in order to reduce the likelihood of ever convicting an innocent. Unlike, say, the Jim Crow laws, jury nullification doesn't exist for the purposes of racial discrimination, even if its been used that way on occasion.
As far as the jurors were concerned, yes.
As far as the system was concerned, then it's as I stated.
You pay for police service, fire service, protection from foreign enemies, insurance against money loss, unemployment if you can't get a job, medical assistance for those that are retired/too poor to afford it, food if you cannot afford it, infrastructure, and various environmental and consumer protections...For all the government does, and all the people that sacrifice years of their lives in return for compensation which you have already provided so that you can have all of these things, I think you can sacrifice a few weeks without any reasonable compensation.
Fixed that for you.
I believe in jury duty. However, it's obvious that governments don't. If they did, they'd require employers to continue to pay their employees throughout the jury process, and compensate them for the money thus spent at tax time. As it is, you can see precisely the import that government places in jury duty by looking at the money they spend on it - diddly squat.
Have you ever been on jury duty? I was on a case that ran for a week. For about 80% of the time, we weren't in the courtroom - the lawyers were arguing about legal technicalities that the jury wasn't allowed to hear before the judge ruled who was right. On a number of days, we came in, went into the court for its opening, went straight to the jury room, and stayed there for the entire day, returning to the court only for its close at the end of the day. It was even a fairly open and shut case as far as the jury was concerned. And it was bloody boring. If I hadn't had some sort of way to pass the time, I would have gone bonkers. As it was, I brought a book. These days, since I tend to read ebooks on my phone, I would not be impressed if they took it away and made me sit and stare at a wall all day.
Jury nullification is designed to be a check on the power of the state, not a check on the power of the jury. There are other tools for dealing with those sort of biases - jury selection, change of venue, etc. If an outcome like the above is given, the question should be "why was there an all-white jury in a race crime" and "if no suitable jury could be found locally, why wasn't the trial moved to an area where a dispassionate jury could be recruited?"