Sure there are cynical leaders who manipulate people via religion (Stalin comes to mind). However with many meglomaniacs the belief that either they themselves are a god, or that they are the conduit between the gods and mere mortals, aligns quite well with their phycopathic ego.
"The ostensible reason is to protect children. That's a good idea."
Protect them from what? Were the children of ancient greece harmed by the overt sexual behaviour and pornographic art that was so prevelent in their civilization? If we really want to stop phycologically damaging childeren then we should ban religious brain washing of people under the age of 21.
Don't send your thankyou note just yet. This is just another beat up from the Murdoch crowd. If you read between the lines it is not the government but rather one MP with no power to do anything except rant...
Claire Perry, the Tory MP for Devizes and a keen lobbyist for more restrictions, said: "Unless we show leadership, the internet industry is not going to self-regulate. The minister has said he will get the ISPs together and say, 'Either you clean out your stables or we are going to do it for you'."
Equating that to "the government" is like saying the US government is going to assasinate Assange because of the rantings of one hypre-ventilating congressman. This proposal will get even less traction than Australia's "great firewall" which (as I predicted several years ago) has gone nowhere, and never will.
TFA is dishonest and written in a way that feeds the parinoia of many slashdotters, which I suspect is the main reason that tripe like this makes it to the front page..
He probably fully believes in an afterlife, after all his dad has been dead for quite a while yet he is still the offical head of state. As Christopher Hitchens puts it, "NK is the world's only necroptacy".
Not to mention the radius given for the blast is the complete destruction radius, the radius at which humans burst into flames is about 6-7 times that number.
"Say for example this rape occurred on an "Ottoman" and a juror looked up what that word meant..."
...and found one of the following definitions...
# a Turk (especially a Turk who is a member of the tribe of Osman I)
# the Turkish dynasty that ruled the Ottoman Empire from the 13th century to its dissolution after World War I
# of or relating to the Ottoman Empire or its people or its culture
"Frankly I think the judge over reacted by declaring a mistrial."
It's not about the content of the information, it's the fact a basic proceedure was ignored. If he hadn't doeclared a mistrial it then any defense lawyer worth their fee would have appealed and would very likely have won a mistrial anyway. The judge did the right thing by short circiting that process, "justice delayed is justice denied", "the law is an ass", etc.
No, you are allowed to think and your allowed to share those thoughts with the other jurors, in fact it's expected of you. What you are not allowed to do is drag you computer (or any other material) into the jury room and give the other 11 jurors a demonstration (or as in TFA a definition).
"The whole purpose of juries is to bring in people from outside, who can think for themselves, and are less likely to be involved in some closed system of corruption."
And the purpose of a judge is to make sure that happens in a non-predjudicial manner.
"can understand not wanting to quote from wikipedia or something but a reference source like a vetted encyclopedia? It's ridiculous."
And just how do you expect the juror to know the difference when both encyclopedia's have a similar level of accuracy? Where does the line get drawn, tabloid articles, slashdot summaries?
There is a reason the guy in the big chair is called a judge, one of his main tasks is to judge what evidence is admissable and what lines of questioning are relevant. Anything outside those bounds is by definition prejudical material regardless of the veracity of the source.
It all boils down to the fact that when teaching oneself, the teacher and the student have identical levels of ignorance. This may be ok for learning a new skill but it is not ok for a jury to be teaching themselves "facts" that were not formally presented in the case.
So let's say we all rise up in a cultural revolution and go back to the fields where we can do an honest days labour side-by-side with our families, and then what happens Mr Mao?
"The bad Science Fiction dystopia is real. The bees? Just a late stage of this sad, intentional collapse..."
No, the reality is that nobody could have guessed our current social norms back in the 50's, let alone planned them! The idillic picture of the past you paint is just the misplaced nostalgia of a bunch of semi-senile people from my generation.
Of course it does, but denying someone access to their own property is not one of those times. You can advise against it but as I said you do not have the right to force your proffesional advice onto your client/patient/boss unless what they are proposing is illegal. Any time you say "no", (and I've done it numerous times myself), you have to be prepared to walk and it would be unproffesional in the extreme to walk without returning the keys.
Where did you get that wacko conspiracy theory from, the discovery institute? People were arguing that the Earth was anywhere from 75,000 to a billion years old as early as the 1700's. They used calculations based on observations of erosion and strata, these dating method were first used by Descartes in the early 1600's, three years BEFORE Ussher counted up all the begats and came up with the infamous 4004 BC date. By the time Darwin published the origin of species it was widely accepted by the geologists that the Earth was at least a billion years old.
In other word the old Earth theory preceded the theory of evolution by at least a century.
If by "sanctimonious prick" you mean a realist who belives property rights are fundemental to a civil society, then yes.
"Most of the exec staff I respect fully owns that they are morons on technical matters (At least with the details) and would never want to know things like root passwords."
There is a vast difference between a PHB making the wise decision to censor himself, and you making the unwise decision that he is not competent enough to have full control over his own property.
This so called moron* is your employer (or their representative), HE has given YOU access to HIS equipment, not the other way around. He pays YOUR bills in return for you following HIS rules while operating the equpment HE has given YOU access to. It is his perogative to break anything that belongs to him, your job is to ADVISE him not to do so (and repair it when he says "opps"). If you don't like it when he ignores your ADVICE you are free to relinquish the access HE has granted to HIS property and leave, you are not free to force your advice on him (unless he is performing an illegal act). If because of personality/intelectual problems you cannot abide by this universal employer/employee contract and have come to believe it's you right to deny him access to his property then he will need HIS passwords to grant access to the person he replaces you with when he fires your contemptuous arse. The same principles apply to everything from the combination to the company safe to the keys to the janitors closet, the only thing you have an implied right to withold from your PHB are your PERSONAL passwords, swipe cards, etc. You DO NOT have the right to deny your employer access to their property, regardless of how much better you think you can care for it.
* - If he is the moron then why is it that you are working for him?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, in theory it's a good idea to elect judges, however in practice it seems to produce the same quality of judges as it does politicians.
Sure there are cynical leaders who manipulate people via religion (Stalin comes to mind). However with many meglomaniacs the belief that either they themselves are a god, or that they are the conduit between the gods and mere mortals, aligns quite well with their phycopathic ego.
"The ostensible reason is to protect children. That's a good idea."
Protect them from what? Were the children of ancient greece harmed by the overt sexual behaviour and pornographic art that was so prevelent in their civilization? If we really want to stop phycologically damaging childeren then we should ban religious brain washing of people under the age of 21.
Don't send your thankyou note just yet. This is just another beat up from the Murdoch crowd. If you read between the lines it is not the government but rather one MP with no power to do anything except rant...
Claire Perry, the Tory MP for Devizes and a keen lobbyist for more restrictions, said: "Unless we show leadership, the internet industry is not going to self-regulate. The minister has said he will get the ISPs together and say, 'Either you clean out your stables or we are going to do it for you'."
Equating that to "the government" is like saying the US government is going to assasinate Assange because of the rantings of one hypre-ventilating congressman. This proposal will get even less traction than Australia's "great firewall" which (as I predicted several years ago) has gone nowhere, and never will.
TFA is dishonest and written in a way that feeds the parinoia of many slashdotters, which I suspect is the main reason that tripe like this makes it to the front page..
"We don't need perfect trials."
No, but who amoungst us wants to be in the dock on the day we stop striving for them.
Yes it would be the same if she looked it up at home and got caught, but that is very different to having a "Eureka momement" in your head.
He probably fully believes in an afterlife, after all his dad has been dead for quite a while yet he is still the offical head of state. As Christopher Hitchens puts it, "NK is the world's only necroptacy".
Not to mention the radius given for the blast is the complete destruction radius, the radius at which humans burst into flames is about 6-7 times that number.
"Say for example this rape occurred on an "Ottoman" and a juror looked up what that word meant..."
...and found one of the following definitions...
# a Turk (especially a Turk who is a member of the tribe of Osman I)
# the Turkish dynasty that ruled the Ottoman Empire from the 13th century to its dissolution after World War I
# of or relating to the Ottoman Empire or its people or its culture
"Frankly I think the judge over reacted by declaring a mistrial."
It's not about the content of the information, it's the fact a basic proceedure was ignored. If he hadn't doeclared a mistrial it then any defense lawyer worth their fee would have appealed and would very likely have won a mistrial anyway. The judge did the right thing by short circiting that process, "justice delayed is justice denied", "the law is an ass", etc.
"Ooops... mistrial...?"
No, you are allowed to think and your allowed to share those thoughts with the other jurors, in fact it's expected of you. What you are not allowed to do is drag you computer (or any other material) into the jury room and give the other 11 jurors a demonstration (or as in TFA a definition).
"The whole purpose of juries is to bring in people from outside, who can think for themselves, and are less likely to be involved in some closed system of corruption."
And the purpose of a judge is to make sure that happens in a non-predjudicial manner.
"can understand not wanting to quote from wikipedia or something but a reference source like a vetted encyclopedia? It's ridiculous."
And just how do you expect the juror to know the difference when both encyclopedia's have a similar level of accuracy? Where does the line get drawn, tabloid articles, slashdot summaries?
There is a reason the guy in the big chair is called a judge, one of his main tasks is to judge what evidence is admissable and what lines of questioning are relevant. Anything outside those bounds is by definition prejudical material regardless of the veracity of the source.
It all boils down to the fact that when teaching oneself, the teacher and the student have identical levels of ignorance. This may be ok for learning a new skill but it is not ok for a jury to be teaching themselves "facts" that were not formally presented in the case.
At least the US knows where to find the documents, one of our MP's is still trying to locate them.
Bah.
Can you translate that please, I don't speak sheep.
This game was great, it kept my kids off the lawn when it came out.
So let's say we all rise up in a cultural revolution and go back to the fields where we can do an honest days labour side-by-side with our families, and then what happens Mr Mao?
"The bad Science Fiction dystopia is real. The bees? Just a late stage of this sad, intentional collapse..."
No, the reality is that nobody could have guessed our current social norms back in the 50's, let alone planned them! The idillic picture of the past you paint is just the misplaced nostalgia of a bunch of semi-senile people from my generation.
"Wisdom and legality are not the same thing."
Who said it was? My point was that starting a fight you can't possibly win is generally regarded as unwise.
Yeah I know, don't feed the trolls, but sometimes I can't help myself because they are so cute.
Basic property rights are for everyone, even the incompetent.
"Sometimes professionalism means saying "no"."
Of course it does, but denying someone access to their own property is not one of those times. You can advise against it but as I said you do not have the right to force your proffesional advice onto your client/patient/boss unless what they are proposing is illegal. Any time you say "no", (and I've done it numerous times myself), you have to be prepared to walk and it would be unproffesional in the extreme to walk without returning the keys.
You missed the part where I said "you are not free to force your advice on him (unless he is performing an illegal act)".
"I really don't think a step back from the shrinkage is too much to ask"
Especially since it's been done before.
Where did you get that wacko conspiracy theory from, the discovery institute? People were arguing that the Earth was anywhere from 75,000 to a billion years old as early as the 1700's. They used calculations based on observations of erosion and strata, these dating method were first used by Descartes in the early 1600's, three years BEFORE Ussher counted up all the begats and came up with the infamous 4004 BC date. By the time Darwin published the origin of species it was widely accepted by the geologists that the Earth was at least a billion years old.
In other word the old Earth theory preceded the theory of evolution by at least a century.
"wow, aren't you a sanctimonious prick
If by "sanctimonious prick" you mean a realist who belives property rights are fundemental to a civil society, then yes.
"Most of the exec staff I respect fully owns that they are morons on technical matters (At least with the details) and would never want to know things like root passwords."
There is a vast difference between a PHB making the wise decision to censor himself, and you making the unwise decision that he is not competent enough to have full control over his own property.
This so called moron* is your employer (or their representative), HE has given YOU access to HIS equipment, not the other way around. He pays YOUR bills in return for you following HIS rules while operating the equpment HE has given YOU access to. It is his perogative to break anything that belongs to him, your job is to ADVISE him not to do so (and repair it when he says "opps"). If you don't like it when he ignores your ADVICE you are free to relinquish the access HE has granted to HIS property and leave, you are not free to force your advice on him (unless he is performing an illegal act). If because of personality/intelectual problems you cannot abide by this universal employer/employee contract and have come to believe it's you right to deny him access to his property then he will need HIS passwords to grant access to the person he replaces you with when he fires your contemptuous arse. The same principles apply to everything from the combination to the company safe to the keys to the janitors closet, the only thing you have an implied right to withold from your PHB are your PERSONAL passwords, swipe cards, etc. You DO NOT have the right to deny your employer access to their property, regardless of how much better you think you can care for it.
* - If he is the moron then why is it that you are working for him?