I saw it, but didn't make the connection:-( You are correct that judges will often give instructions that make it seem as if jury nullification does not exist, and that the written law and judges orders are the only available options.
In addition, don't dare let on to the judge or DA that you know what jury nullification is during the voi dire (jury vetting and selection process) part of the trial. You'll NEVER sit on a jury if the judge and DA think you are going to judge the defendant AND the law.
the jury would have no choice in the matter but to find the teenager guilty
Not true. The jury has the ability to judge the law unjust, and acquit the defendant, even if they are shown to be guilty of breaking the letter of the law. This is known as jury nullification, and has been a part of western common law for centuries.
It goes back further than that. See the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. During the breakup of the USSR, Ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear arsenal in exchange for assurances from Russia, the US, and the UK that Russia would respect Ukrainian sovereignty. The memo doesn't require military intervention by the US or UK in the event or Russian hostility, but it does justify a military response if it comes to that.
People other than combatants are harmed even when they aren't the intended target.
Shining light on the true horrors should then be a good thing. By not showing the true face of war, the populace cannot make an informed decision about whether to support such actions. If the "war" shown on MSNBCNN looks like a video game with the gore settings turned down to 0, it's much easier to persuade the people to back the true destruction that is happening, but is not being reported.
We used to have something like that in the US in the late 90s, even if it wasn't advertised or easy to get set up. I recall having some spirited conversations with phone company representatives when trying to set up my DSL connection with a third party ISP.
I'm not sure how or when comcast/verizon/att/whoever managed to get this squashed.
it should be legally obvious that you can't be arrested *only* for "resisting arrest"
Logically,that makes complete sense. However, police officers and District Attorneys, and the legal system in general, do not operate on a purely logical basis.
"Resisting arrest" should probably be renamed "Contempt of Cop"
No, they are not. Do you think it's any different with Verizon, CenturyLink, or any other regional or national ISP? Every one of them has received the tax breaks that started with the
Telecom Act of 1996, and instead of using that additional money to build infrastructure as mandated in the law, have generally used it to line the pockets of they executives with cash.
I'm not really convinced that the internet will end without net neutrality. It could potentially make a few things inconvenient, but I'm not convinced that we need to get out our pitchforks and torches over it.
This is the beginning of turning the internet into Cable TV 2.0. In a few years you will be buying an internet plan based on whether you get high speed access to Netflix, Hulu, Facebook, or whatever hot new web service shows up. You want to use "old school" internet tools that run on ports other than 80, 443, 25, 465/587? That'll be extra, or maybe you'll have to get the "Business" package.
it only ever takes actions towards ending it
I'm no Obama fan, nor did I vote for him, but for the first few years of his presidency, he seemed to be trying to get the FCC to enforce net neutrality. This was met with resistance from every major national ISP. Some examples include Verizon arguing that "it had a first amendment right to block content on its network." and "like a newspaper, it provides you with news but has a right to cover whatever it wants and say whatever it wants." Another would be Comcast suing the FCC to overturn the FCC order censuring Comcast from interfering with subscribers' use of peer-to-peer software
The part of the 1996 Telecom Act that excludes ISPs from being covered under common carrier rules would seem to support this. I think amending the law to remove this restriction would then give the FCC more legal ability to actually implement some form of net neutrality, and keep us from having to "get out our pitchforks and torches over it."
I love how they tase the passenger, which causes loss of voluntary muscle control. This is then written up as "resisting arrest" for not putting your hands behind your back or not following whatever other orders are given. Now they have "justification" for further beating. You could spend all day on youtube watching similar examples.
It could possibly happen that ISPs might actually upgrade their networks for once if they're getting paid more.
In the years 2010-2013, Comcast has seen net income, after taxes and expenses, of between $3.6B and $6.8B. Part of this was earned by operating a service that is delivered over physical infrastructure that they didn't build and have effective monopoly control over. Tell me again how they haven't had enough cash to do any upgrades.
What I see happening is more extortion of the content providers like we saw with Netflix.
Comcast: "That's a nice data stream you're sending to our customer. It'd be a shame if something were to throttle it. You should buy some of our data transmission insurance. Then we'll make sure nothing like that happens"
All the while, they'll be complaining about how their customers are trying to actually use the bandwidth they purchased and how streaming services (other than those sold by comcast) continue to put stress on the comcast network.
Simple answer to their unreasonable inspection of your data, Virtual Private Network. Route your entire connection through a VPN, and let them try their deep packet inspection on that link.
If you don't want to worry about what the comcast firmware might be up to, you could also use a third party modem from Motorola, Cisco, Netgear, or some others. Comcast has a site that lists compatible modems, based on your service type, and what level of level of testing they did with those modems.
I paid more than $21 for my motorola modem. But 9 months later I've recouped that cost and don't have to worry about what shenanegins Comcast might be playing with the firmware. I know that doesn't do any thing to stop their traffic shaping/throttling and deep packet inspection, but that what pointing the internal routers at a VPN is for.
It takes time to decrypt those packets, figure out if they are going to netflix, piratebay, etc; decide how much delay and replacement advertising to introduce; and implement the decision.
how far the Cartels will push the government before they just decide to cut the military loose
Using some of their giant stream of incoming cash to bribe top govt and military officials means the cartel leaders don't have to worry about this. I expect they just consider bribes as one of the costs of doing business.
using some algorithm I'm currently unfamiliar with so will not bother to explain in detail but the point is it exists, take a share of the transaction they facilitated as a "transaction fee"
The sender in the transaction specifies the transaction fee. The wiki has more info.
"the person attempting to make a transaction can include any fee or none at all in the transaction. On the other hand, nobody mining new bitcoins necessarily needs to accept the transactions and include them in the new block being created. The transaction fee is therefore an incentive on the part of the bitcoin user to make sure that a particular transaction will get included into the next block which is generated.
It is envisioned that over time the cumulative effect of collecting transaction fees will allow somebody creating new blocks to "earn" more bitcoins than will be mined from new bitcoins created by the new block itself. This is also an incentive to keep trying to create new blocks even if the value of the newly created block from the mining activity is zero in the far future. "
This can also be seen as the ever-decreasing value of the USD. The Federal Reserve has been been buying $80+billion in Treasury Bonds every month since the third round of Quantitative Easing started in September 2012.
Lets see if they follow through on the tapering program this time.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe there have been at least two stories about netflix support of linux clients.
In addition, don't dare let on to the judge or DA that you know what jury nullification is during the voi dire (jury vetting and selection process) part of the trial. You'll NEVER sit on a jury if the judge and DA think you are going to judge the defendant AND the law.
the jury would have no choice in the matter but to find the teenager guilty
Not true. The jury has the ability to judge the law unjust, and acquit the defendant, even if they are shown to be guilty of breaking the letter of the law. This is known as jury nullification, and has been a part of western common law for centuries.
Bumping into things?
There are things, and they are bumping. I guess that makes your statement correct.
2006
It goes back further than that. See the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. During the breakup of the USSR, Ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear arsenal in exchange for assurances from Russia, the US, and the UK that Russia would respect Ukrainian sovereignty. The memo doesn't require military intervention by the US or UK in the event or Russian hostility, but it does justify a military response if it comes to that.
You can (appear) to close the app, while it will continue to record, even if you lock the phone.
People other than combatants are harmed even when they aren't the intended target.
Shining light on the true horrors should then be a good thing. By not showing the true face of war, the populace cannot make an informed decision about whether to support such actions. If the "war" shown on MSNBCNN looks like a video game with the gore settings turned down to 0, it's much easier to persuade the people to back the true destruction that is happening, but is not being reported.
What happens when the definition of "doing something wrong" changes?
Choose Format - Font Size
I'm not sure how or when comcast/verizon/att/whoever managed to get this squashed.
it should be legally obvious that you can't be arrested *only* for "resisting arrest"
Logically, that makes complete sense. However, police officers and District Attorneys, and the legal system in general, do not operate on a purely logical basis.
"Resisting arrest" should probably be renamed "Contempt of Cop"
Not every ISP is comcast.
No, they are not. Do you think it's any different with Verizon, CenturyLink, or any other regional or national ISP? Every one of them has received the tax breaks that started with the Telecom Act of 1996, and instead of using that additional money to build infrastructure as mandated in the law, have generally used it to line the pockets of they executives with cash.
I'm not really convinced that the internet will end without net neutrality. It could potentially make a few things inconvenient, but I'm not convinced that we need to get out our pitchforks and torches over it.
This is the beginning of turning the internet into Cable TV 2.0. In a few years you will be buying an internet plan based on whether you get high speed access to Netflix, Hulu, Facebook, or whatever hot new web service shows up. You want to use "old school" internet tools that run on ports other than 80, 443, 25, 465/587? That'll be extra, or maybe you'll have to get the "Business" package.
it only ever takes actions towards ending it
I'm no Obama fan, nor did I vote for him, but for the first few years of his presidency, he seemed to be trying to get the FCC to enforce net neutrality. This was met with resistance from every major national ISP. Some examples include Verizon arguing that "it had a first amendment right to block content on its network." and "like a newspaper, it provides you with news but has a right to cover whatever it wants and say whatever it wants." Another would be Comcast suing the FCC to overturn the FCC order censuring Comcast from interfering with subscribers' use of peer-to-peer software
The part of the 1996 Telecom Act that excludes ISPs from being covered under common carrier rules would seem to support this. I think amending the law to remove this restriction would then give the FCC more legal ability to actually implement some form of net neutrality, and keep us from having to "get out our pitchforks and torches over it."
I love how they tase the passenger, which causes loss of voluntary muscle control. This is then written up as "resisting arrest" for not putting your hands behind your back or not following whatever other orders are given. Now they have "justification" for further beating. You could spend all day on youtube watching similar examples.
It could possibly happen that ISPs might actually upgrade their networks for once if they're getting paid more.
In the years 2010-2013, Comcast has seen net income, after taxes and expenses, of between $3.6B and $6.8B. Part of this was earned by operating a service that is delivered over physical infrastructure that they didn't build and have effective monopoly control over. Tell me again how they haven't had enough cash to do any upgrades.
What I see happening is more extortion of the content providers like we saw with Netflix.
All the while, they'll be complaining about how their customers are trying to actually use the bandwidth they purchased and how streaming services (other than those sold by comcast) continue to put stress on the comcast network.
Simple answer to their unreasonable inspection of your data, Virtual Private Network. Route your entire connection through a VPN, and let them try their deep packet inspection on that link.
Have you tried routing your traffic through a VPN? I hear Netflix works a lot better when your ISP isn't able to identify and throttle their traffic.
Via txt message you can disable the phone, wipe the phone and/or SD card, trigger the camera, turn on/off mobile data, and more.
I paid more than $21 for my motorola modem. But 9 months later I've recouped that cost and don't have to worry about what shenanegins Comcast might be playing with the firmware. I know that doesn't do any thing to stop their traffic shaping/throttling and deep packet inspection, but that what pointing the internal routers at a VPN is for.
It takes time to decrypt those packets, figure out if they are going to netflix, piratebay, etc; decide how much delay and replacement advertising to introduce; and implement the decision.
how far the Cartels will push the government before they just decide to cut the military loose
Using some of their giant stream of incoming cash to bribe top govt and military officials means the cartel leaders don't have to worry about this. I expect they just consider bribes as one of the costs of doing business.
using some algorithm I'm currently unfamiliar with so will not bother to explain in detail but the point is it exists, take a share of the transaction they facilitated as a "transaction fee"
The sender in the transaction specifies the transaction fee. The wiki has more info.
"the person attempting to make a transaction can include any fee or none at all in the transaction. On the other hand, nobody mining new bitcoins necessarily needs to accept the transactions and include them in the new block being created. The transaction fee is therefore an incentive on the part of the bitcoin user to make sure that a particular transaction will get included into the next block which is generated. It is envisioned that over time the cumulative effect of collecting transaction fees will allow somebody creating new blocks to "earn" more bitcoins than will be mined from new bitcoins created by the new block itself. This is also an incentive to keep trying to create new blocks even if the value of the newly created block from the mining activity is zero in the far future. "
you see that more oppression almost inevitably follows this type of surveillance.
Does that make it a little more clear for you?
We stood idly by while Saddam expended huge quantities of chemical weapons.
Personally that may be true. On a bigger scale, we (the United States) provided helped them deploy the chemical weapons.
Our governments (US and UK) knew very well what Saddam had, and what Saddam was capable of.
We certainly should have known what Saddam had and was capable of. First, we helped put the Ba'ath party in to power. During the Iran / Iraq war, we helped them financially and with intelligence information. Then, we sold the precursors of chemical weapons to them and provided reconnaissance intelligence that was used in their deployment. Why else would Donald Rumsfeld be smiling as he shook Saddams hand in 1983?
You will note, I hope, that I've said nothing in Saddam Hussein's defense. I have ONLY pointed out how dishonest our own governments are.
And here is more evidence supporting that supposition.
ever-increasing value of a bitcoin
This can also be seen as the ever-decreasing value of the USD. The Federal Reserve has been been buying $80+billion in Treasury Bonds every month since the third round of Quantitative Easing started in September 2012. Lets see if they follow through on the tapering program this time.
Outsourcing it to Elbonia didn't work out very well.