I would guess (I have no data) that the extreme vast majority of dropped charges and acquittals are not paired with the government handing over a "oh, our bad" with a check for the cost of your legal team to defend against the State's charges.
In civil matters, yes there are measures for counter-suing to cover legal costs, as well as punitive damages that can be levied for frivolous actions. Not so much with criminal actions - sure there are statutes against malicious prosecution and so on, but good luck making that.
He'll never do the 10. This is the opening shot from the DA, pushing this guy and his lawyer into the room to plead it down to 1-2 years plus a multi-year tail of probation and parole. State's attorneys do this all the time - announce the maximum to scare the shit out of you (especially if they have a solid case, which they definitely do here), and then offer a deal that saves the taxpayers the expense and hassle of a jury trial as well as the expense of locking this asshole up for a further 8 years.
And really, in this case, everyone wins. He pays the restitution to the school, he gets put away into a box for a little bit, the Assistant DA notches another "win" as they contemplate a run for a judgeship or actual DA, society is rid of this asshole for a bit while not paying for a lengthy trial and to put him up for 10 years after the inevitable sentencing because he's an idiot and posted what amounts to a video confession to YouTube.
The assistant DA will often accept a plea for less of a sentence in order to spare the taxpayer the expense and time of a trial that has a known outcome due to all the considerations you mention.
This guy will see the inside of a jail for a few years, and still get a fine; but it won't be what is reported here. Especially since it was a non-violent crime - they'll kick him due to overcrowding long before he's in for 10 years even if he eats the whole meal.
You bring up an interesting point - if Apple now gets separate licensing terms, doesn't that violate the F/RAND licensing that every other Qualcomm customer adopted in order to use this stuff?
Apple was bitching about the 'R' in F/RAND, and basically just got Qualcomm to agree to violate the 'F' by making a special deal for Apple. Unless other companies are not having to pay a percent of device value, in which case Apple may have had a sound case.
The US carriers are playing their usual games of rebranding existing shitty services as "5G", or dicking around with fringe-of-the-standard garbage instead of just going and buying equipment and deploying.
Handset manufacturers are launching 5G handsets literally next month, but you won't see one on offer from US carriers, because they just aren't ready.
No, but it should give you license to use the x86 instruction set to run software on the chip. And license to use technologies involved in talking to various RAM, PCI, USB, and other device interconnects.
If inactive accounts merely existing "hurts the platform irreparably" then I would say the "platform" isn't built very solid, and is doomed to failure.
Inactive accounts are an inevitability in any computer service. People get bored, move on to other services, die. You cannot avoid inactive accounts.
Yes, you can; but the links are built to get you to log in, so that they (twitter) can then bleat on about active user accounts disguising the fact that they aren't active at all.
If you can't win at the metrics, then game the numbers. Make "active" mean "accounts that people have logged into in X days", instead of "accounts where people have actually posted content to the service" and look at the numbers go up when you scheme people into logging in out of sheer link-click-lazy!
I read it more like "I wish we were Reddit" than what you got out of it.
Sure, there can be some echo chamber creation on Reddit, but most subs are topic based and have posts and content linked that are both positive, and critical.
Yeah, because having the #4 mobile operator in the US fall apart from bankruptcy and have the top 3 buy their assets and leave their customers in the cold is a way better outcome than having #3 and #4 merge, creating.... the #3 largest mobile operator in the US.
This deal would close the gap between the top two and #3, ensuring better competition and keeping the market working the way it's supposed to. Does anyone know what the DoJ's specific complaints are here? As I understand it, their ability to block these kinds of things are based upon antitrust law, and it's pretty clear this isn't creating a monopoly of any sort - not in mobile communications, and not in traditional long distance carrier service as T-Mobile doesn't operate any.
Ground-launched space rockets begin to roll to the optimal attitude and pitch over to let gravity help pull the rocket horizontal basically the instant they are clear of any launch infrastructure. Getting out of the atmosphere is easy - it's horizontal velocity that keeps you out, and you need a whole hell of a lot of it.
Yeah, they cut those "profiting from monopoly status" corners. There's a new player, and they cost far less than you do. This is what happens when you stagnate from having no competition.
You've got it now, and they're going to kick your ass.
And yet when the same game was played by The Senate Majority Leader From the Party to Which You Bear Allegiance, I doubt you had much to say about it.
See: Harry Reid and his shitcanning of the many ACA repeals passed by the house. But it's obstructionist now, all of a sudden? And McConnell is "bad" for doing the exact same damn thing that basically every Senate majority leader in history has done - not waste the Senate's time on timed floor debate that serves no purpose and votes that are assured to fail, after endless amendments are attempted to be hung on it, and each voted for?
What purpose would any of that serve, except to actually get a Senator to record a vote on that particular bill? Or to get incredible sound bites about how someone voted for something in committee before voting against it on the floor because of amendments, etc. so you can end up distilling it down to a 5 second out-of-context quote to hammer someone with in the next election?
I'd rather they focus floor time on shit that has a prayer of becoming law.
Somehow I have a feeling you didn't feel the same way when Harry Reid was shitcanning all the duly passed Affordable Care Act repeals that came his way from the House.
Those were show-votes too, and just as DOA in the Senate where there would be one line put into the record of it being "laid on the table" - e.g. dumped in the trash where it belongs without consideration by the Senate.
If you think that Congress wastes time now, and that the President has too much power already, go ahead and institute what you suggest and see what happens. Watch the executive wear out the veto stamp.
I'm betting that, like myself, the GP is more interested in legislation that has a prayer of passing both chambers. This bill isn't that - it's a partisan piece of trash that everybody knew was DOA in the Senate, much less down Pennsylvania Ave. before it was even inked on paper. It's really easy to vote for that when there are zero consequences, and even the telecoms won't be withholding donations to your committee to re-elect because they know how the game is played as well - they don't take it personally, but they'll still expect you to throw them a vote when it actually matters.
If the Congress was at all interested in governing, they would have come up with a compromise bill where nobody got everything they wanted, but the People get better than we have now. They didn't do that, and instead decided to have a show vote in the same spirit of all of those useless Affordable Care Act repeal votes that never would see the light of day in a Senate with a Democrat majority.
This is the exact same shit, but because "the other tribe" is doing it now, it's ok? The only thing that will come out of this vote is the ability for PACs to cite this vote in direct-mail fundraiser campaigns saying that Republican incumbent X voted to trample your rights on the Internet so please send us a check; and endorsements (read: donations) from special interests that happen to align with those voting "yea" on this singular issue.
It's very easy to vote for something that you know will never get through the Senate, or would be subject to instant Presidential veto.
This was a show vote, and nothing more. This is the Democrats playing the same game that political parties have been playing every time there is a divided government - position your political opposition on the wrong side of any issue that you are favored on in a poll, and then scream to all the fundraisers how the big bad $PARTY is a bunch of puppets for [corporations|unions|special interests|extremist environmentalists|religious right|socialist left] and cry all the way to the bank with the Brinks truck full of checks so that you can fund all the party hack bums to get elected and never solve the issues, because you want the issue for beating the opposition over the head.
And you fell for it. Again.
This is why there is never any movement on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, fiscal responsibility, health care, gun rights / gun control, or any other important issue - you even think about changing anything or going after any "sacred cow" and you are instantly carpet bombed by ads from AARP, ACLU, Unions, the NRA, religious mega-monied interests, industry trade groups with more money than some small nations being poured into their 503(c) war chests, etc. It's almost impossible to actually get anything done, and remain in place to do anything else. And more to the point, unless you can get 322 other members of the Federal government to go along, you're going to fail and still get a well funded primary challenger for your efforts.
Both parties are the parties of go-along-to-get-along right until the bill comes due, at which point it becomes the other party's fault. They both kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with, and never make the hard decisions. They both conduct show-vote gotcha-games and spend more time creating wedge issues and misrepresenting other people's positions rather than make attempts at compromise, or governing.
And those that do, lose their seats to more extreme candidates for their efforts.
Well, I can say with some certainty that you can't really call yourself the party of science when there's nothing but knee-jerk reactions from the left when it comes to nuclear energy or GMO foods, and there are a whole lot of the anti-vaccination crowd that self-identify with the left.
If you're going to be pro-science, then be pro-science. Just like I would say to conservatives - don't cherry pick your science because you end up looking like an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
I would guess (I have no data) that the extreme vast majority of dropped charges and acquittals are not paired with the government handing over a "oh, our bad" with a check for the cost of your legal team to defend against the State's charges.
In civil matters, yes there are measures for counter-suing to cover legal costs, as well as punitive damages that can be levied for frivolous actions. Not so much with criminal actions - sure there are statutes against malicious prosecution and so on, but good luck making that.
He'll never do the 10. This is the opening shot from the DA, pushing this guy and his lawyer into the room to plead it down to 1-2 years plus a multi-year tail of probation and parole. State's attorneys do this all the time - announce the maximum to scare the shit out of you (especially if they have a solid case, which they definitely do here), and then offer a deal that saves the taxpayers the expense and hassle of a jury trial as well as the expense of locking this asshole up for a further 8 years.
And really, in this case, everyone wins. He pays the restitution to the school, he gets put away into a box for a little bit, the Assistant DA notches another "win" as they contemplate a run for a judgeship or actual DA, society is rid of this asshole for a bit while not paying for a lengthy trial and to put him up for 10 years after the inevitable sentencing because he's an idiot and posted what amounts to a video confession to YouTube.
The assistant DA will often accept a plea for less of a sentence in order to spare the taxpayer the expense and time of a trial that has a known outcome due to all the considerations you mention.
This guy will see the inside of a jail for a few years, and still get a fine; but it won't be what is reported here. Especially since it was a non-violent crime - they'll kick him due to overcrowding long before he's in for 10 years even if he eats the whole meal.
You bring up an interesting point - if Apple now gets separate licensing terms, doesn't that violate the F/RAND licensing that every other Qualcomm customer adopted in order to use this stuff?
Apple was bitching about the 'R' in F/RAND, and basically just got Qualcomm to agree to violate the 'F' by making a special deal for Apple. Unless other companies are not having to pay a percent of device value, in which case Apple may have had a sound case.
You will if you aren't in the United States.
The US carriers are playing their usual games of rebranding existing shitty services as "5G", or dicking around with fringe-of-the-standard garbage instead of just going and buying equipment and deploying.
Handset manufacturers are launching 5G handsets literally next month, but you won't see one on offer from US carriers, because they just aren't ready.
No, but it should give you license to use the x86 instruction set to run software on the chip. And license to use technologies involved in talking to various RAM, PCI, USB, and other device interconnects.
And you know what? It does.
You know that Apple and Intel are both US companies too, right?
You're kind of an idiot.
If inactive accounts merely existing "hurts the platform irreparably" then I would say the "platform" isn't built very solid, and is doomed to failure.
Inactive accounts are an inevitability in any computer service. People get bored, move on to other services, die. You cannot avoid inactive accounts.
Yes, you can; but the links are built to get you to log in, so that they (twitter) can then bleat on about active user accounts disguising the fact that they aren't active at all.
If you can't win at the metrics, then game the numbers. Make "active" mean "accounts that people have logged into in X days", instead of "accounts where people have actually posted content to the service" and look at the numbers go up when you scheme people into logging in out of sheer link-click-lazy!
I read it more like "I wish we were Reddit" than what you got out of it.
Sure, there can be some echo chamber creation on Reddit, but most subs are topic based and have posts and content linked that are both positive, and critical.
With the ultimate prize being the ability to disable Twitter completely?
Oh wait, I already have that option. By completely ignoring it, because it's a largely useless service.
Yeah, because having the #4 mobile operator in the US fall apart from bankruptcy and have the top 3 buy their assets and leave their customers in the cold is a way better outcome than having #3 and #4 merge, creating.... the #3 largest mobile operator in the US.
This deal would close the gap between the top two and #3, ensuring better competition and keeping the market working the way it's supposed to. Does anyone know what the DoJ's specific complaints are here? As I understand it, their ability to block these kinds of things are based upon antitrust law, and it's pretty clear this isn't creating a monopoly of any sort - not in mobile communications, and not in traditional long distance carrier service as T-Mobile doesn't operate any.
No, instead Sprint's legacy is being the spawn of a railroad company, and railroad companies never did anything bad or abusive in the past.
FYI, "Sprint" used to be an acronym: Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Network Telecommunications
Ground-launched space rockets begin to roll to the optimal attitude and pitch over to let gravity help pull the rocket horizontal basically the instant they are clear of any launch infrastructure. Getting out of the atmosphere is easy - it's horizontal velocity that keeps you out, and you need a whole hell of a lot of it.
Still wrong.
136k Volts sold over 9 years. 250k+ Teslas sold in the US alone, confirmed by the phasing-out of the EV tax credit.
Spotted the ULA shill.
Yeah, they cut those "profiting from monopoly status" corners. There's a new player, and they cost far less than you do. This is what happens when you stagnate from having no competition.
You've got it now, and they're going to kick your ass.
And yet when the same game was played by The Senate Majority Leader From the Party to Which You Bear Allegiance, I doubt you had much to say about it.
See: Harry Reid and his shitcanning of the many ACA repeals passed by the house. But it's obstructionist now, all of a sudden? And McConnell is "bad" for doing the exact same damn thing that basically every Senate majority leader in history has done - not waste the Senate's time on timed floor debate that serves no purpose and votes that are assured to fail, after endless amendments are attempted to be hung on it, and each voted for?
What purpose would any of that serve, except to actually get a Senator to record a vote on that particular bill? Or to get incredible sound bites about how someone voted for something in committee before voting against it on the floor because of amendments, etc. so you can end up distilling it down to a 5 second out-of-context quote to hammer someone with in the next election?
I'd rather they focus floor time on shit that has a prayer of becoming law.
Somehow I have a feeling you didn't feel the same way when Harry Reid was shitcanning all the duly passed Affordable Care Act repeals that came his way from the House.
Those were show-votes too, and just as DOA in the Senate where there would be one line put into the record of it being "laid on the table" - e.g. dumped in the trash where it belongs without consideration by the Senate.
If you think that Congress wastes time now, and that the President has too much power already, go ahead and institute what you suggest and see what happens. Watch the executive wear out the veto stamp.
Did you say the same thing about all those Repeal Obamacare votes in the house pre-2016?
I'll bet you didn't. And it is the exact same thing.
Bipartisan legislation that makes legitimate compromises in order to have a prayer of passing?
It really is possible to *work* with the other party to get shit done, you know...
Please.
I'm betting that, like myself, the GP is more interested in legislation that has a prayer of passing both chambers. This bill isn't that - it's a partisan piece of trash that everybody knew was DOA in the Senate, much less down Pennsylvania Ave. before it was even inked on paper. It's really easy to vote for that when there are zero consequences, and even the telecoms won't be withholding donations to your committee to re-elect because they know how the game is played as well - they don't take it personally, but they'll still expect you to throw them a vote when it actually matters.
If the Congress was at all interested in governing, they would have come up with a compromise bill where nobody got everything they wanted, but the People get better than we have now. They didn't do that, and instead decided to have a show vote in the same spirit of all of those useless Affordable Care Act repeal votes that never would see the light of day in a Senate with a Democrat majority.
This is the exact same shit, but because "the other tribe" is doing it now, it's ok? The only thing that will come out of this vote is the ability for PACs to cite this vote in direct-mail fundraiser campaigns saying that Republican incumbent X voted to trample your rights on the Internet so please send us a check; and endorsements (read: donations) from special interests that happen to align with those voting "yea" on this singular issue.
It tells me that you don't know a damn thing about the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Here's a big hint: there's a shitload of coal miners that live in Kentucky.
It's very easy to vote for something that you know will never get through the Senate, or would be subject to instant Presidential veto.
This was a show vote, and nothing more. This is the Democrats playing the same game that political parties have been playing every time there is a divided government - position your political opposition on the wrong side of any issue that you are favored on in a poll, and then scream to all the fundraisers how the big bad $PARTY is a bunch of puppets for [corporations|unions|special interests|extremist environmentalists|religious right|socialist left] and cry all the way to the bank with the Brinks truck full of checks so that you can fund all the party hack bums to get elected and never solve the issues, because you want the issue for beating the opposition over the head.
And you fell for it. Again.
This is why there is never any movement on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, fiscal responsibility, health care, gun rights / gun control, or any other important issue - you even think about changing anything or going after any "sacred cow" and you are instantly carpet bombed by ads from AARP, ACLU, Unions, the NRA, religious mega-monied interests, industry trade groups with more money than some small nations being poured into their 503(c) war chests, etc. It's almost impossible to actually get anything done, and remain in place to do anything else. And more to the point, unless you can get 322 other members of the Federal government to go along, you're going to fail and still get a well funded primary challenger for your efforts.
Both parties are the parties of go-along-to-get-along right until the bill comes due, at which point it becomes the other party's fault. They both kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with, and never make the hard decisions. They both conduct show-vote gotcha-games and spend more time creating wedge issues and misrepresenting other people's positions rather than make attempts at compromise, or governing.
And those that do, lose their seats to more extreme candidates for their efforts.
Because clearly all use-of-force incidents by police departments are exactly equal and never justified.
You're kind of an idiot.
Well, I can say with some certainty that you can't really call yourself the party of science when there's nothing but knee-jerk reactions from the left when it comes to nuclear energy or GMO foods, and there are a whole lot of the anti-vaccination crowd that self-identify with the left.
If you're going to be pro-science, then be pro-science. Just like I would say to conservatives - don't cherry pick your science because you end up looking like an idiot.