Then that sucks. In the case you linked to though, it seems there was good reason for him to be in contempt:
When "Primetime" interviewed Chadwick four years ago, he had finally started to cooperate with the court. So the judge was able to hire forensic accountants to try and track down the money. By that point, however, the trail had run cold and no new leads turned up. The accountant's task was also hampered at the time by Chadwick's refusal to sign authorizations that would have allowed for a more thorough search.
I want criminals to be convicted. If you can do something that hurts criminals without hurting innocent people, do it. Nothing cruel or unusual, of course.
That's why the defendant has a lawyer. To argue to the judge that the phone does not in fact belong to the defendant (if that is the case). Or to argue that the defendant has some kind of weird amnesia or whatever the bizarre unrealistic situation you have in your mind.
You didn't answer the question. I'll repeat it here for your convenience:
The real question to answer is, "How can this be abused?"
If no abuse is happening, or even potentially possible, you're never going to get enough outrage to change things. Even me: I'd rather sit posting on Slashdot than waste time changing things that don't matter. So: what abuse are you worried about?
I get the point you're making about discovery, but this *still* violates being a witness against yourself.
It is being a witness against yourself when the ownership of the phone is in doubt.
In this case, if they know the phone is hers, they just want to see what is on your phone. That's not testifying against yourself, it's like looking into your diary, which is also fair evidence.
The real question to answer is, "How can this be abused?" If there's some serious abuse potential, we should worry. In the current case, I don't see any abuse happening.
Enough to not kill you, but still too little is very painful.
Experientially speaking, it makes you not want to eat any food that doesn't have enough salt on it. Literally you'd rather starve than eat because of the lack of salt.
Lowering sodium intake seems like a good idea given all the studies that show correlation between cardiac health issues and high levels of sodium. Honest question here...
Exactly. Most likely San Francisco has no jobs that would be replaced by things that look like 'robots.' Those are for manufacturing jobs.
In San Francisco, jobs will merely be replaced by automation. Not robots. For that matter, this is merely an attempt by a politician to raise her profile after losing a bitter election last cycle.
Some industries are very good at claiming them, making their effective tax rate much lower than those which don't.
Which is a serious problem from a free-market perspective, because it creates an unfair playing field that favors incumbents, and a serious problem from a socialist perspective, because they get out of paying their fair share of taxes.
Words like: die kannst Diese du bist oder Seite
Are what make it look German to my un-distinguishing English eyes (previously I had assumed Esperanto would look more like Spanish/Italian).
Slashdot Mirror
So you can't explain why. Your understanding is too shallow to understand why.
That's too bad.
Can you even explain why such a right would be written into law? Or does the limit of your analytical ability end at, "it is a right, and that is it?"
Except if a Judge decides he doesn't give a fuck,
Then that sucks. In the case you linked to though, it seems there was good reason for him to be in contempt:
When "Primetime" interviewed Chadwick four years ago, he had finally started to cooperate with the court. So the judge was able to hire forensic accountants to try and track down the money. By that point, however, the trail had run cold and no new leads turned up. The accountant's task was also hampered at the time by Chadwick's refusal to sign authorizations that would have allowed for a more thorough search.
It appears he was not cooperating.
I want criminals to be convicted. If you can do something that hurts criminals without hurting innocent people, do it. Nothing cruel or unusual, of course.
That's why the defendant has a lawyer. To argue to the judge that the phone does not in fact belong to the defendant (if that is the case). Or to argue that the defendant has some kind of weird amnesia or whatever the bizarre unrealistic situation you have in your mind.
Good question, I don't know that it's ever come up in a court.
The only thing I learn from your answer is that you don't have an answer. You haven't thought it through, and your reaction is just a kneejerk one.
LEARN TO THINK! And if you are thinking, PROVE IT!!
How does that hurt anyone? If you say something along the lines of, "it makes criminals more likely to be convicted" then uh....just don't.
The real question to answer is, "How can this be abused?"
If no abuse is happening, or even potentially possible, you're never going to get enough outrage to change things. Even me: I'd rather sit posting on Slashdot than waste time changing things that don't matter. So: what abuse are you worried about?
The real question to answer is, "How can this be abused?"
(btw if you think any set of words is razor sharp about anything, you are clearly not a lawyer.)
I get the point you're making about discovery, but this *still* violates being a witness against yourself.
It is being a witness against yourself when the ownership of the phone is in doubt.
In this case, if they know the phone is hers, they just want to see what is on your phone. That's not testifying against yourself, it's like looking into your diary, which is also fair evidence.
The real question to answer is, "How can this be abused?" If there's some serious abuse potential, we should worry. In the current case, I don't see any abuse happening.
Today I found out that cat organs were a real thing.
Which apps?
It's not palatability so much as lethargy.
Your last two sentences are really good though. I should check it out I have no idea what they are doing.
Enough to not kill you, but still too little is very painful.
Experientially speaking, it makes you not want to eat any food that doesn't have enough salt on it. Literally you'd rather starve than eat because of the lack of salt.
You just have to call it a computer, not a robot, and problem solved. Loophole achieved.
Lowering sodium intake seems like a good idea given all the studies that show correlation between cardiac health issues and high levels of sodium. Honest question here...
The correlation is not at all clear
Message passing is not expensive, in fact, it's likely far cheaper than excessive synchronization required in "standard" mutable data structures
Exactly.
Exactly. Most likely San Francisco has no jobs that would be replaced by things that look like 'robots.' Those are for manufacturing jobs.
In San Francisco, jobs will merely be replaced by automation. Not robots. For that matter, this is merely an attempt by a politician to raise her profile after losing a bitter election last cycle.
Some industries are very good at claiming them, making their effective tax rate much lower than those which don't.
Which is a serious problem from a free-market perspective, because it creates an unfair playing field that favors incumbents, and a serious problem from a socialist perspective, because they get out of paying their fair share of taxes.
Message passing isn't that expensive. Again, if your system slows down as a result of adding a core, then you've done something wrong.
That's an interesting point, Klingon seems to lend itself naturally to poetry.
OSX is built on the Mach kernel, which is message based, since the NeXT days. Grand Central Dispatch didn't change that.
Oh. Well obviously it's not German :D
Words like: die kannst Diese du bist oder Seite
Are what make it look German to my un-distinguishing English eyes (previously I had assumed Esperanto would look more like Spanish/Italian).