convict an innocent person because they have some (racial, ethnic, gender) bias against that person.
No, they can't. That's why it's called jury nullification, not jury creation - they can set aside existing laws, but they can't establish new ones. A jury verdict of "guilty" can be set aside by the judge if there's no law broken; a verdict of "not guilty" cannot. The system is deliberately skewed to prefer the guilty go free, rather than risk the innocent being punished. That's why the standard of proof in criminal trials is "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than the "preponderance of evidence" you get in civil cases.
That's somewhat true. It was widespread before prohibition (American independence and civil war saw a lot of nullification). And judges clamped down on educating people about their rights regarding nullification, but not the exercise of those rights.
Which is the result of a system that is inherently and deliberately biased to letting the guilty go free, rather than punishing the innocent. Would you rather it be the other way around?
What you describe is a mistrial, not an example of jury nullification.
Jury nullification is when a jury refuses to pass a guilty verdict, despite the law. It's the jury judging the law, rather than the defendant. Jury nullification is the last defence against an unjust law.
As we've seen with the Pirate Bay though, whether or not the studios allow it or not has no bearing on the content being available online. All it has a bearing on is whether or not people will pay for it or not. Music piracy used to be the big thing - now with iTunes and Amazon, they're available to purchase cheaply, easily, in a compatible format. Now, most people I know just buy it legit. There's no reason not to.
But plenty of people would like a minimum standard car that reduces their running costs by a decent proportion, and optionally assuages their green-guilt.
From the look of the article (which is pretty non-specific) it asked respondents to estimate their average driving distance.
This isn't what matters. What matters is "What would be the longest distance you would want to drive during a day?". Like I said, it's the edge-cases that make a limited-range vehicle impractical, not the day-to-day cases. It doesn't matter if you drive an average of 40 miles a day, if twice a year you drive 100.
You shouldn't. The question is whether enough of the population have your use-case to make the cars viable. It seems not. I'm like you - I rarely drive more than 20k a day (yay for short commutes). However, I drive 200k a day when we go to visit my in-laws. While a car with a short range is suitable for my day-to-day needs, it's not going to handle edge-cases. And it's more economical to have one car that can handle both, than two cars for specific situations.
The other thing that does matter is recharge time, as that has an impact on how important range is - if it takes 5 minutes to refill the tank, you can do that in the middle of a trip. If it takes 5 hours, not so much.
Because "range" is what you engage in transportation for - to get from A to B.
Speed isn't really important, because it's capped by speed limits anyway, so as long as your car can reach the speed limits, who cares? Cornering ability is mandated by law - if your car sucks so hard at cornering, it won't get approved to drive on public roads. As long as it meets the minimum standard, who cares? Acceleration is likewise unimportant for the actual purpose of transportation. As long as it's not totally ridiculous, having a poor acceleration will increase the length of your journey only a miniscule amount Wade depth is unimportant while you're driving on roads, which is what these vehicles are designed for Shiny paint is unrelated to transportation, and can be serviced by an afterrmarket
The real problem is that devices are Subsidized. If you don't pay for all of the device, should the company be able to lock you in on the device? I think they should.
Why? You're still in a contract with them. In fact, it's even more beneficial to them if you jailbreak - you still have to pay them for their services, but if you go to another carrier as well, they don't have to provide them. Free money.
do we know what the impact to an ecosystem where a species like this is released?
If it were released into the wild, the impact would probably be a free meal for local carnivores. One strand of DNA does not a breeding population make, and an animal adapted to Ice Age conditions isn't likely to be marked high for survivability in the modern era.
In making your rant against Android fanboys (apparently anyone who doesn't have a problem with their Android phone is a fanboy...) you come across as the worst stereotype of an Apple fanboy.
When you show me one Android device that doesn't have OBVIOUS UI lag in scrolling, then... and ONLY then will I even consider the idea that Android may eventually one day be comparable to iOS
Really? So it doesn't matter whether your device loses all signal when you hold it wrong, or if it churns through its battery in under a day after a software update, or if it prevents you from installing any apps that compete with those published by its maker, no, none of these matter. The sole criteria on which to judge the worthiness of a mobile platform is a minor graphical bug that has no real bearing on usability.
And if anybody claims that actually, they haven't seen that particular bug on their device, they're an ignorant fanboy whose opinion can be discounted.
It all depends on the security of the authority that issued you your generator - much the same as your mobile number. If they hand out your generator seed willy-nilly - the way telcos appear to do for mobile number porting requests - you're just as vulnerable.
The issue here isn't that the technology wasn't good enough, it's that the trusted authority shouldn't have been trusted.
SMS is clearly not a good replacement for real Two-Factor authentication
Two-factor auth isn't a panacea. SMS (or rather, mobile numbers) are real two-factor authentication - or, more accurately, they are a valid second factor. Something you know, something you have, something you are - pick any two. Password and mobile number is a reasonable choice. The fact that your mobile number is (apparently) so easily stolen doesn't negate this.
The fail at this point wasn't that the bank implemented security poorly - it's that the Telco did. They didn't even have one-factor authentication. They asked for two points of information - customer number and DOB - neither of which can reasonably be considered a secure secret. Even then, the Telco is following the process that it has been mandated to follow by the government - including the data that should be used to verify identity. If the government are going to mandate requirements for business processes, then they should either be damn sure what they're mandating is secure, or they should explicitly leave security implementation up to the business.
And even before that, back when websites were static things made by hand, URLs were generally human-readable and meaningful. The whole "arbitrary primary key in the URL" was a brief blip due to unsophisticated content management systems. It's not even to do with SEO; ask any consumer of a CMS if they'd rather their customers visit/story/3409u65096890547567 or/story/latest-scandel-breaks. They'll always pick the later. Large, random numbers, to most people, are ugly. If they can hide them away behind something human-readable and friendly, they will. Hence DNS.
That is highly questionable. You don't ignore your duty to the law or to what you know to be right just because your boss tells you to. Or rather you shoudn't.
Except looking at emails on a system you own isn't illegal, and thus he would have had no duty to the law in this case.
One way to mitigate this is "extreme programming" where developers pair and constantly switch off projects and tasks
The problem with extreme programming (and with all good practice, really) is that it's inefficient (in the context of getting it out the door). It has a cost. Management doesn't want to pay for good practice now - now they want to pay for shipping the code. Three years later, then they decide they want good practice, only it's now impossible to implement for all the reasons noted in the article, and the comments.
Nobody said the solution was free software; the solution is open source software.
How are you going to "tamp down on malfeasance" when you don't even know what code your device is running? Yes, you may not be able to understand the code your device runs, even if you are a competent dev. But there are thousands of other people in the world who can. Moreover, once a bit of malware is found, there are even more people who can verify it. And it's much, much harder to hide stuff in your code when your source is available for inspection.
Finally, open source has nothing to do with protecting your software from being copied. Have a look at the Pireate Bay - how many of those pieces of software are pirated because their source is available? Hiding your source is only useful if you don't want someone to know what you are doing, or how you are doing it. The first case is unethical (you're trying to hide what the software is doing from the person you sold it to) and the second is futile - there are very few features that a moderately-skilled developer couldn't re-implement themselves, and most of those features are generally fairly abstract, highly mathematical processes (like compression) which are generally protected by patents rather than copyright (i.e. the same process can be run with different code, making copyright a poor defence against duplication)
Slashdot Mirror
convict an innocent person because they have some (racial, ethnic, gender) bias against that person.
No, they can't. That's why it's called jury nullification, not jury creation - they can set aside existing laws, but they can't establish new ones. A jury verdict of "guilty" can be set aside by the judge if there's no law broken; a verdict of "not guilty" cannot. The system is deliberately skewed to prefer the guilty go free, rather than risk the innocent being punished. That's why the standard of proof in criminal trials is "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than the "preponderance of evidence" you get in civil cases.
That's somewhat true. It was widespread before prohibition (American independence and civil war saw a lot of nullification). And judges clamped down on educating people about their rights regarding nullification, but not the exercise of those rights.
Which is the result of a system that is inherently and deliberately biased to letting the guilty go free, rather than punishing the innocent. Would you rather it be the other way around?
No, they argue for it because marijuana being illegal is an unjust law - in other words, for exactly the same reasons as the GP said..
What you describe is a mistrial, not an example of jury nullification.
Jury nullification is when a jury refuses to pass a guilty verdict, despite the law. It's the jury judging the law, rather than the defendant. Jury nullification is the last defence against an unjust law.
As we've seen with the Pirate Bay though, whether or not the studios allow it or not has no bearing on the content being available online. All it has a bearing on is whether or not people will pay for it or not. Music piracy used to be the big thing - now with iTunes and Amazon, they're available to purchase cheaply, easily, in a compatible format. Now, most people I know just buy it legit. There's no reason not to.
But plenty of people would like a minimum standard car that reduces their running costs by a decent proportion, and optionally assuages their green-guilt.
Thing is, electric cars won't even delivery that.
From the look of the article (which is pretty non-specific) it asked respondents to estimate their average driving distance.
This isn't what matters. What matters is "What would be the longest distance you would want to drive during a day?". Like I said, it's the edge-cases that make a limited-range vehicle impractical, not the day-to-day cases. It doesn't matter if you drive an average of 40 miles a day, if twice a year you drive 100.
You shouldn't. The question is whether enough of the population have your use-case to make the cars viable. It seems not. I'm like you - I rarely drive more than 20k a day (yay for short commutes). However, I drive 200k a day when we go to visit my in-laws. While a car with a short range is suitable for my day-to-day needs, it's not going to handle edge-cases. And it's more economical to have one car that can handle both, than two cars for specific situations.
The other thing that does matter is recharge time, as that has an impact on how important range is - if it takes 5 minutes to refill the tank, you can do that in the middle of a trip. If it takes 5 hours, not so much.
Because "range" is what you engage in transportation for - to get from A to B.
Speed isn't really important, because it's capped by speed limits anyway, so as long as your car can reach the speed limits, who cares?
Cornering ability is mandated by law - if your car sucks so hard at cornering, it won't get approved to drive on public roads. As long as it meets the minimum standard, who cares?
Acceleration is likewise unimportant for the actual purpose of transportation. As long as it's not totally ridiculous, having a poor acceleration will increase the length of your journey only a miniscule amount
Wade depth is unimportant while you're driving on roads, which is what these vehicles are designed for
Shiny paint is unrelated to transportation, and can be serviced by an afterrmarket
Um, same thing as if you don't pay any other bill? Welcome to the world of debt collection...
Or that people are fishing for data rather than hardware
The real problem is that devices are Subsidized. If you don't pay for all of the device, should the company be able to lock you in on the device? I think they should.
Why? You're still in a contract with them. In fact, it's even more beneficial to them if you jailbreak - you still have to pay them for their services, but if you go to another carrier as well, they don't have to provide them. Free money.
do we know what the impact to an ecosystem where a species like this is released?
If it were released into the wild, the impact would probably be a free meal for local carnivores. One strand of DNA does not a breeding population make, and an animal adapted to Ice Age conditions isn't likely to be marked high for survivability in the modern era.
In making your rant against Android fanboys (apparently anyone who doesn't have a problem with their Android phone is a fanboy...) you come across as the worst stereotype of an Apple fanboy.
When you show me one Android device that doesn't have OBVIOUS UI lag in scrolling, then ... and ONLY then will I even consider the idea that Android may eventually one day be comparable to iOS
Really? So it doesn't matter whether your device loses all signal when you hold it wrong, or if it churns through its battery in under a day after a software update, or if it prevents you from installing any apps that compete with those published by its maker, no, none of these matter. The sole criteria on which to judge the worthiness of a mobile platform is a minor graphical bug that has no real bearing on usability.
And if anybody claims that actually, they haven't seen that particular bug on their device, they're an ignorant fanboy whose opinion can be discounted.
It all depends on the security of the authority that issued you your generator - much the same as your mobile number. If they hand out your generator seed willy-nilly - the way telcos appear to do for mobile number porting requests - you're just as vulnerable.
The issue here isn't that the technology wasn't good enough, it's that the trusted authority shouldn't have been trusted.
The same could be said about anything. The seed for your token generator isn't something you have - it's something anybody could have.
SMS is clearly not a good replacement for real Two-Factor authentication
Two-factor auth isn't a panacea. SMS (or rather, mobile numbers) are real two-factor authentication - or, more accurately, they are a valid second factor. Something you know, something you have, something you are - pick any two. Password and mobile number is a reasonable choice. The fact that your mobile number is (apparently) so easily stolen doesn't negate this.
The fail at this point wasn't that the bank implemented security poorly - it's that the Telco did. They didn't even have one-factor authentication. They asked for two points of information - customer number and DOB - neither of which can reasonably be considered a secure secret. Even then, the Telco is following the process that it has been mandated to follow by the government - including the data that should be used to verify identity. If the government are going to mandate requirements for business processes, then they should either be damn sure what they're mandating is secure, or they should explicitly leave security implementation up to the business.
And even before that, back when websites were static things made by hand, URLs were generally human-readable and meaningful. The whole "arbitrary primary key in the URL" was a brief blip due to unsophisticated content management systems. It's not even to do with SEO; ask any consumer of a CMS if they'd rather their customers visit /story/3409u65096890547567 or /story/latest-scandel-breaks. They'll always pick the later. Large, random numbers, to most people, are ugly. If they can hide them away behind something human-readable and friendly, they will. Hence DNS.
Yes, we really need a -1 Informative too.
That is highly questionable. You don't ignore your duty to the law or to what you know to be right just because your boss tells you to. Or rather you shoudn't.
Except looking at emails on a system you own isn't illegal, and thus he would have had no duty to the law in this case.
Don't want people charging you for stupid things?
Don't make stupid policies that you actually want people to circumvent.
That's not thievery, that's a management surcharge - as in "management, dealing with"
One way to mitigate this is "extreme programming" where developers pair and constantly switch off projects and tasks
The problem with extreme programming (and with all good practice, really) is that it's inefficient (in the context of getting it out the door). It has a cost. Management doesn't want to pay for good practice now - now they want to pay for shipping the code. Three years later, then they decide they want good practice, only it's now impossible to implement for all the reasons noted in the article, and the comments.
His signature line is a string of such errors. The correct response is "whoosh".
Nobody said the solution was free software; the solution is open source software.
How are you going to "tamp down on malfeasance" when you don't even know what code your device is running? Yes, you may not be able to understand the code your device runs, even if you are a competent dev. But there are thousands of other people in the world who can. Moreover, once a bit of malware is found, there are even more people who can verify it. And it's much, much harder to hide stuff in your code when your source is available for inspection.
Finally, open source has nothing to do with protecting your software from being copied. Have a look at the Pireate Bay - how many of those pieces of software are pirated because their source is available? Hiding your source is only useful if you don't want someone to know what you are doing, or how you are doing it. The first case is unethical (you're trying to hide what the software is doing from the person you sold it to) and the second is futile - there are very few features that a moderately-skilled developer couldn't re-implement themselves, and most of those features are generally fairly abstract, highly mathematical processes (like compression) which are generally protected by patents rather than copyright (i.e. the same process can be run with different code, making copyright a poor defence against duplication)