For that kind of volume, I wouldn't imagine you'd use the switched telephone network. You'd probably use a 1-800 number in the US and have it route over private leased trunks to your call center(s). Just guessing, though.
My previous employer had a branch office in Asia, and one time I checked our phone bill. After that, I didn't want to see it any more.
If that is true there is no point in having a jury at all.
The point of a jury is to decide the facts. In any criminal case, one party is going to say X happened, while the other will say that Y happened. It is the jury's job to decide which of these things is true.
Well in advance of the jury's deliberations, the judge-- with input from both parties-- has decided the legal issues of the case. If X happened, then the defendant is guilty of the crime of A. If Y happened, then the defendant isn't. The judge delivers these instructions to the jury so they will know how to translate their finding of fact into a verdict.
In a jury trial, the jury decides the facts, and the judge decides the law. (Usually. Almost always.)
Re:Hmmmm, interesting. It still sucked.
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 2
True, but I would say that morals are the rules for generating ethics.
According to what I've been taught, experts (whatever that means) disagree on this point. Some thinkers believe that an ethical system should be entirely self-supporting, whereas a moral system is based on one or more fundamental axioms carved on stone tablets or something. I tend to subscribe to this interpretation as well.
I read your journal review and am going to give AI a second viewing.
I hope you find it's worth your time. If not, flame me or something.;-)
But his motivation for writing the essay is irrelevant in this case.
Sure it is. It's called trolling: saying something controversial not because you believe it or because you want to inspire intelligent debate, but just to get attention.
Heh. David Brin is a big, fat troll. What a weird day.
Re:Hmmmm, interesting. It still sucked.
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 2
Hmm. Okay, I'll buy it. But if pressed, I would say that Blade Runner deals with merely ethical questions, while AI attempts to invoke much harder moral ones.
After 100 or so years of reckless optimism, we're finally starting to realize that the future can suck, even when great technology comes along.
Actually, after 40 or so years of blind nihilism and dystopianism, I'm pretty sure that the pendulum is swinging back toward optimism again. The future's so bright, I've gotta wear shades, baby.
Generally, trends in speculative fiction oppose social and political trends. In the first half of the 20th century, when we went from the Great War to the Great Depression (in the US) to World War II, speculative fiction was uniformly optimistic. The postwar period was generally pretty good for everybody socially and politically-- not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than a world at war-- and the fiction turned dark and pessimistic, finally culminating in the fin de siecle* escapism of the late 1990's. Now the pendulum is starting to swing back.
Movies, of course, are often 5 years or so behind the trend in fiction.
* Woo! I finally got to use "fin de siecle" in conversation!
You might want to note the fact that discrediting the speaker is not always a fallacy. Sometimes, such as in this case, it's a legitimate criticism. You should not just accept what a person has to say without considering the context in which it was said.
The two trolls look remarkably similar in facial structure, etc, which I found interesting
Uh... uh? Let's see. Mouth... check. Nose... check. Two eyes, kind of in the middle... check. But that's about where the similarities end.
Did you see the same movie(s) I saw?
Re:Hmmmm, interesting. It still sucked.
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 2
Some themes always show up when fiction involves a created being that can communicate with its creator.
Like what, for instance? I see Blade Runner as a fairly straightforward story about mortality, with the added layer of the question of identity if you get into the "Deckard's a replicant" thing. Great movie, great story, great themes. AI, on the other hand, really doesn't have anything to say about mortality, and touches on identity (in the "know thyself" sense) only tangentially.
All that, mind you, is before the jury asks itself if it wants Russia applying its domestic laws in, say, Michigan.
I was right with you up to this point. This issue is deader than dead. The crime of which these folks are accused was committed on US soil; they were arrested on US soil; they are being tried on US soil. The fact that they're Russian citizens is irrelevant.
If you were to commit a crime in Russia, you would expect to be arrested by Russian police officers, tried in a Russian court, and, if convicted, sentenced to a Russian prison. This situation is no different.
And jury nullification is the right of the jury, so they can decide whether the law is right/wrong.
Well, not really. As MacAndrew said up-thread, nullification is unofficial at best, and has applied to both good and bad ends. There's really no way we can get rid of it-- the jury does return the verdict, after all-- but it's not really a "right" in any meaningful sense either. It's more like a loophole.
I can't really speak about his content. I didn't read too far past, "Goddamn, but that is just dumb." That's the point where I realized I really wasn't interested in anything he had to say.
In re-reading my original post, I found that I didn't really say what I mean in the third paragraph. What I meant to say is this: juries in criminal cases are almost always concerned with questions of fact. Did Person X do such-and-such? Did Person X do such-and-such in such-and-such way? The judge gives the jury instructions on which facts have to be demonstrated in order to return which verdict. It becomes a set of if-then propositions. If Person X did such-and-such, in such-and-such way, then return a verdict of "guilty."
Why, exactly, the jury asked to see a document-- it's not entirely clear which document-- we may never know. They should not, if they've been adequately instructed, have to refer to the law at all.
That's what I really meant to say. I think you understood what I mean, but I wanted to clarify anyway.
Your point on nullification, though, is well taken. But isn't it safe to say that a trial jury isn't supposed to be concerned with questions of law and procedure, but rather the facts of the case? Questions of law and procedure are usually reserved for the appellate courts, right?
Burying the jury in 100 pages of legalise can destract them from the task at hand.
Speaking of which, does anybody know where this "100 pages" thing came from? Chapter 12 of Title 17, which is (I think) the relevant body of law, is only 13 pages long. Where did Ms. Glasner get her "100 pages" thing?
Juries in criminal cases such as this one don't usually consult the law for themselves. It's not that they can't, or that they're not allowed to, or that they shouldn't; it's just that juries are given instruction in matters of law by the judge.
Seems to me that it's entirely appropriate that the same thing happen here. If jurors have questions about the law, they're free to ask the judge at any time.
The important thing to note here is that this is a trial court, not an appellate court. The law itself is not up for review. The jury is only allowed to decide the facts of the case within the law as it is written. Deciding whether the law is okay or not is for another court.
Re:And the benefit...
on
HotBot Returns
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I have a similar story. The mother of a friend of mine is into buying toys and clothes and stuff for her grandkids. Way back in the early days of the popular Web, like 1995 or thereabouts, she went online looking for a brand of kid's stuff called "Lil' Tykes."
I categorically refuse to tell you what came up when she typed "lil tykes" into a search engine. As far as I know, the poor woman hasn't used the Internet since.
Re:Two Words....
on
HotBot Returns
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Yahoo Maps.
Which you can access through Google. Google is also nice enough to give you the choice of MapQuest, if you'd prefer it over Yahoo Maps for any reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Note to self: evidently "Informative" can also mean "moderately convincing lie."
from news.google.com: Your search - sony playstation nintendo trademark - did not match any documents.
That's bullshit. It does too match a story, "Nintendo's Playstation Settlement Bombshell," posted 5 minutes ago on Sl... dammit.
For that kind of volume, I wouldn't imagine you'd use the switched telephone network. You'd probably use a 1-800 number in the US and have it route over private leased trunks to your call center(s). Just guessing, though.
My previous employer had a branch office in Asia, and one time I checked our phone bill. After that, I didn't want to see it any more.
If that is true there is no point in having a jury at all.
The point of a jury is to decide the facts. In any criminal case, one party is going to say X happened, while the other will say that Y happened. It is the jury's job to decide which of these things is true.
Well in advance of the jury's deliberations, the judge-- with input from both parties-- has decided the legal issues of the case. If X happened, then the defendant is guilty of the crime of A. If Y happened, then the defendant isn't. The judge delivers these instructions to the jury so they will know how to translate their finding of fact into a verdict.
In a jury trial, the jury decides the facts, and the judge decides the law. (Usually. Almost always.)
True, but I would say that morals are the rules for generating ethics.
;-)
According to what I've been taught, experts (whatever that means) disagree on this point. Some thinkers believe that an ethical system should be entirely self-supporting, whereas a moral system is based on one or more fundamental axioms carved on stone tablets or something. I tend to subscribe to this interpretation as well.
I read your journal review and am going to give AI a second viewing.
I hope you find it's worth your time. If not, flame me or something.
But his motivation for writing the essay is irrelevant in this case.
Sure it is. It's called trolling: saying something controversial not because you believe it or because you want to inspire intelligent debate, but just to get attention.
Heh. David Brin is a big, fat troll. What a weird day.
Hmm. Okay, I'll buy it. But if pressed, I would say that Blade Runner deals with merely ethical questions, while AI attempts to invoke much harder moral ones.
After 100 or so years of reckless optimism, we're finally starting to realize that the future can suck, even when great technology comes along.
Actually, after 40 or so years of blind nihilism and dystopianism, I'm pretty sure that the pendulum is swinging back toward optimism again. The future's so bright, I've gotta wear shades, baby.
Generally, trends in speculative fiction oppose social and political trends. In the first half of the 20th century, when we went from the Great War to the Great Depression (in the US) to World War II, speculative fiction was uniformly optimistic. The postwar period was generally pretty good for everybody socially and politically-- not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than a world at war-- and the fiction turned dark and pessimistic, finally culminating in the fin de siecle* escapism of the late 1990's. Now the pendulum is starting to swing back.
Movies, of course, are often 5 years or so behind the trend in fiction.
* Woo! I finally got to use "fin de siecle" in conversation!
You might want to note the fact that discrediting the speaker is not always a fallacy. Sometimes, such as in this case, it's a legitimate criticism. You should not just accept what a person has to say without considering the context in which it was said.
Friend... I think your sense of humor's come unstowed. :-)
The two trolls look remarkably similar in facial structure, etc, which I found interesting
Uh... uh? Let's see. Mouth... check. Nose... check. Two eyes, kind of in the middle... check. But that's about where the similarities end.
Did you see the same movie(s) I saw?
Some themes always show up when fiction involves a created being that can communicate with its creator.
Like what, for instance? I see Blade Runner as a fairly straightforward story about mortality, with the added layer of the question of identity if you get into the "Deckard's a replicant" thing. Great movie, great story, great themes. AI, on the other hand, really doesn't have anything to say about mortality, and touches on identity (in the "know thyself" sense) only tangentially.
Jurors: Can we see the law?
Judge: No.
Jurors: Can we go out for pizza and beers?
Judge: No.
Jurors: Can we play Pictionary?
Judge: No.
Jurors: Can we spend valuable time debating an issue that has no bearing on the verdict?
Judge: No.
See? The system works.
All that, mind you, is before the jury asks itself if it wants Russia applying its domestic laws in, say, Michigan.
I was right with you up to this point. This issue is deader than dead. The crime of which these folks are accused was committed on US soil; they were arrested on US soil; they are being tried on US soil. The fact that they're Russian citizens is irrelevant.
If you were to commit a crime in Russia, you would expect to be arrested by Russian police officers, tried in a Russian court, and, if convicted, sentenced to a Russian prison. This situation is no different.
And jury nullification is the right of the jury, so they can decide whether the law is right/wrong.
Well, not really. As MacAndrew said up-thread, nullification is unofficial at best, and has applied to both good and bad ends. There's really no way we can get rid of it-- the jury does return the verdict, after all-- but it's not really a "right" in any meaningful sense either. It's more like a loophole.
I can't really speak about his content. I didn't read too far past, "Goddamn, but that is just dumb." That's the point where I realized I really wasn't interested in anything he had to say.
In re-reading my original post, I found that I didn't really say what I mean in the third paragraph. What I meant to say is this: juries in criminal cases are almost always concerned with questions of fact. Did Person X do such-and-such? Did Person X do such-and-such in such-and-such way? The judge gives the jury instructions on which facts have to be demonstrated in order to return which verdict. It becomes a set of if-then propositions. If Person X did such-and-such, in such-and-such way, then return a verdict of "guilty."
Why, exactly, the jury asked to see a document-- it's not entirely clear which document-- we may never know. They should not, if they've been adequately instructed, have to refer to the law at all.
That's what I really meant to say. I think you understood what I mean, but I wanted to clarify anyway.
Your point on nullification, though, is well taken. But isn't it safe to say that a trial jury isn't supposed to be concerned with questions of law and procedure, but rather the facts of the case? Questions of law and procedure are usually reserved for the appellate courts, right?
Burying the jury in 100 pages of legalise can destract them from the task at hand.
Speaking of which, does anybody know where this "100 pages" thing came from? Chapter 12 of Title 17, which is (I think) the relevant body of law, is only 13 pages long. Where did Ms. Glasner get her "100 pages" thing?
You know, you're kind of an asshole. Just in case you weren't aware.
Oops. Forgot to click "post anonymously" that time, huh? ;-)
Juries in criminal cases such as this one don't usually consult the law for themselves. It's not that they can't, or that they're not allowed to, or that they shouldn't; it's just that juries are given instruction in matters of law by the judge.
Seems to me that it's entirely appropriate that the same thing happen here. If jurors have questions about the law, they're free to ask the judge at any time.
The important thing to note here is that this is a trial court, not an appellate court. The law itself is not up for review. The jury is only allowed to decide the facts of the case within the law as it is written. Deciding whether the law is okay or not is for another court.
Synergy.
I have a similar story. The mother of a friend of mine is into buying toys and clothes and stuff for her grandkids. Way back in the early days of the popular Web, like 1995 or thereabouts, she went online looking for a brand of kid's stuff called "Lil' Tykes."
I categorically refuse to tell you what came up when she typed "lil tykes" into a search engine. As far as I know, the poor woman hasn't used the Internet since.
Yahoo Maps.
Which you can access through Google. Google is also nice enough to give you the choice of MapQuest, if you'd prefer it over Yahoo Maps for any reason.
Yeah, during the time between when I wrote that post and last Thursday, they made that very announcement.
I've got a journal article up about it, and I'm about to post another, if you're interested in joining in.