Since the job market is awful, it is good to be in school now.
That statement probably should be qualified. There appears to be a price bubble in education at the moment, forcing many students to take loans with onerous terms ( impervious to bankruptcy ). And there's no certainty that the U.S. economy will offer jobs that would let even reasonably-sized student loans be paid off in a reasonable amount of time.
So honestly, the best I hope for is that the education price bubble will have popped by the time my young kids are done with high-school.
Actually? No, it is not a serious issue. 800,000 GOVT employees *not working* is status quo, is it not?
I know plenty of federal workers, and believe me, most of them are not like your local DMV stereotype. You may disagree about the government doing certain kinds of work, but the majority of federal workers I know seem to work at least as hard as their private industry counterparts.
For my scientific computing work, getting as many AVX units as possible onto a single motherboard is actually a big deal. So it would have actually been great if these 10-core chips had AVX.
If only MS had files such a complaint during the GWB presidency. Given his DOJ's hard-on for letting convicted monopolists off Scott-free (Microsoft), I'm sure Dubya would have leaned on the EU on Google's behalf. After all, completely unregulated markets are the epitome of efficiency and public good.
What you describe could happen, but I suspect it would be no more common than the miscarriages of justice that occur under the current system.
And you're offering an example in which my approach would fare worse. What about when it would fare better?
Here's a counter-example to yours: Someone rapes your sister, then runs away. You chase him to his yard, and see him drop a used condom his front steps just before ducking inside and locking his house door. You pick up the condom and bring it to the police, who find your sisters and the rapists DNA all over the thing. Then, it becomes unusable in a courtroom because you didn't have the right to be on his property, and he gets off scott free, and rapes some little girl a week later.
My only point with that counter-example is that both the current system and my proposed system suffer from some flaws, which we can highlight with various examples. So those examples are of limited use.
I will grant you one point, though. It does create a greater incentive for police and prosecutors to ignore our civil rights in order to get a conviction. Especially if it would be up to another chummy DA to prosecute the cop (at his discretion) for obtaining evidence illegally. That could be a fatal flaw in my idea.
I guess there are two parts of my concerns about hiding evidence from a jury.
If it's because the judge considers evidence prejudicial, it's because he thinks jurors can't handle complexities about the relevance of evidence on a conclusion, which is putting his judgment on a pedestal about the judgment of the jurors.
If it's because the evidence was illegally obtained: I don't think it should be excluded, because regardless of its origin, the jury's job is still to provide an actually correct judgment about what happened (in matters of fact). I don't think the proper sanction for illegally obtained evidence is for it to be hidden from the jury. I think the proper sanction is to charge those who obtained it with criminal offenses for doing so.
The whole system of jury trial is based upon the assumption that 12 jurors collectively make a pretty wise choice. By having a judge and attorneys filter the arguments and evidence to which a jury is exposed, they're substituting their own wisdom for that of jurors. Especially when judges refuse to allow defense lawyers to suggest juries consider jury-nullification of a law to be a legitimate exercise of their powers.
That being said, I would suggest that jurors also be given an opportunity to present questions to the lawyers. For example, "I heard on Fox News that the defendant was seen walking around with a gun after the murder. You never mentioned a gun. Was Fox News incorrect on this point?"
I'd say in general, I don't like elitist tyranny that judges can impose over juries, and I'm looking for ways to undo it.
I just spend $3200 (including tax) on a maxed-out 17" MacBook Pro. Call me crazy or dedicated or both.
But in my opinion, unless you're developing for iOS or MacOS X, the Mac is a poor platform for LOTS of different kinds of things. I'm a chip designer, for instance, and there is ZERO software for the Mac in this area. I have to run Windows in a VM just so I can synthesize for FPGAs.
Why did you plunk down that much money before confirming that the software you needed runs on OS X?
Either something's not adding up, or you're just pointing out how rashly you spend $3200.
so the Cell streaming 64 bit floating point architecture is well suited to the task.
When I was doing Cell programming for scientific computing, the Cell's 64-bit double-precision performance actually blew chunks. The Cell found in PS3's, unless they've updated it in the past few years, is first and foremost a videogame processor.
If the Airforce could start from scratch today, I wonder if they'd get better performance for their money using GPU cards rather than PS3's.
Because it does highlight the absurdity of the statutory damages for copyright infringement.
Well, yes and no. I don't think we have oppressive copyright laws due simply to the ignorance of the public and the lawmakers. I don't think this case will make lawmakers and less foolish, any more attentive to the actual bills on which they vote, or any less corrupted by lobbyists.
I'm not sure. Let me ask him whether or not the NSA ran a warrantless-wiretapping operation at AT&T, and whether or not the CIA ferried people to other countries for torture. Someone dedicated to openness would undoubtedly answer that question clearly and unambiguously, right?
Slashdot Mirror
What the world would be like without onerous patent systems.
If you look at the screenshots he posted (example) you'll see that some of the screens were in the German language or a derivative thereof.
English?
Hope he covered his tracks well.
Do you mean that literally? Because honestly, I hope people who hack into power systems get caught.
He'll risk prison just to break wind in public?
Since the job market is awful, it is good to be in school now.
That statement probably should be qualified. There appears to be a price bubble in education at the moment, forcing many students to take loans with onerous terms ( impervious to bankruptcy ). And there's no certainty that the U.S. economy will offer jobs that would let even reasonably-sized student loans be paid off in a reasonable amount of time.
So honestly, the best I hope for is that the education price bubble will have popped by the time my young kids are done with high-school.
I know plenty of federal workers, and believe me, most of them are not like your local DMV stereotype. You may disagree about the government doing certain kinds of work, but the majority of federal workers I know seem to work at least as hard as their private industry counterparts.
For my scientific computing work, getting as many AVX units as possible onto a single motherboard is actually a big deal. So it would have actually been great if these 10-core chips had AVX.
That said, GM did well to not worry about tablets.
Yeah, and look where that got them!
new plan? Don't worry about tablets - we will just cry to governments that we are getting our lunch eaten?
Hey, worked for General Motors.
If only MS had files such a complaint during the GWB presidency. Given his DOJ's hard-on for letting convicted monopolists off Scott-free (Microsoft), I'm sure Dubya would have leaned on the EU on Google's behalf. After all, completely unregulated markets are the epitome of efficiency and public good.
Now I'll need a cutting torch to get a USB thumbdrive out of its packaging.
She is an Obama appointee. And not his first.
I like a lot of Obama's campaign promises.
His execution... not so much.
How can any judge with even a sliver of a conscience not recuse themselves from this case?
This was an RIAA lawyer. I'd check your expectations at the door.
What you describe could happen, but I suspect it would be no more common than the miscarriages of justice that occur under the current system.
And you're offering an example in which my approach would fare worse. What about when it would fare better?
Here's a counter-example to yours: Someone rapes your sister, then runs away. You chase him to his yard, and see him drop a used condom his front steps just before ducking inside and locking his house door. You pick up the condom and bring it to the police, who find your sisters and the rapists DNA all over the thing. Then, it becomes unusable in a courtroom because you didn't have the right to be on his property, and he gets off scott free, and rapes some little girl a week later.
My only point with that counter-example is that both the current system and my proposed system suffer from some flaws, which we can highlight with various examples. So those examples are of limited use.
I will grant you one point, though. It does create a greater incentive for police and prosecutors to ignore our civil rights in order to get a conviction. Especially if it would be up to another chummy DA to prosecute the cop (at his discretion) for obtaining evidence illegally. That could be a fatal flaw in my idea.
I guess there are two parts of my concerns about hiding evidence from a jury.
If it's because the judge considers evidence prejudicial, it's because he thinks jurors can't handle complexities about the relevance of evidence on a conclusion, which is putting his judgment on a pedestal about the judgment of the jurors.
If it's because the evidence was illegally obtained: I don't think it should be excluded, because regardless of its origin, the jury's job is still to provide an actually correct judgment about what happened (in matters of fact). I don't think the proper sanction for illegally obtained evidence is for it to be hidden from the jury. I think the proper sanction is to charge those who obtained it with criminal offenses for doing so.
The whole system of jury trial is based upon the assumption that 12 jurors collectively make a pretty wise choice. By having a judge and attorneys filter the arguments and evidence to which a jury is exposed, they're substituting their own wisdom for that of jurors. Especially when judges refuse to allow defense lawyers to suggest juries consider jury-nullification of a law to be a legitimate exercise of their powers.
That being said, I would suggest that jurors also be given an opportunity to present questions to the lawyers. For example, "I heard on Fox News that the defendant was seen walking around with a gun after the murder. You never mentioned a gun. Was Fox News incorrect on this point?"
I'd say in general, I don't like elitist tyranny that judges can impose over juries, and I'm looking for ways to undo it.
Stop letting judges restrict the information and arguments to which jurors are exposed.
I just spend $3200 (including tax) on a maxed-out 17" MacBook Pro. Call me crazy or dedicated or both.
But in my opinion, unless you're developing for iOS or MacOS X, the Mac is a poor platform for LOTS of different kinds of things. I'm a chip designer, for instance, and there is ZERO software for the Mac in this area. I have to run Windows in a VM just so I can synthesize for FPGAs.
Why did you plunk down that much money before confirming that the software you needed runs on OS X?
Either something's not adding up, or you're just pointing out how rashly you spend $3200.
Define "fair".
When I was doing Cell programming for scientific computing, the Cell's 64-bit double-precision performance actually blew chunks. The Cell found in PS3's, unless they've updated it in the past few years, is first and foremost a videogame processor.
If the Airforce could start from scratch today, I wonder if they'd get better performance for their money using GPU cards rather than PS3's.
Are you serious? The RIAA wrote the relevant laws.
Well, yes and no. I don't think we have oppressive copyright laws due simply to the ignorance of the public and the lawmakers. I don't think this case will make lawmakers and less foolish, any more attentive to the actual bills on which they vote, or any less corrupted by lobbyists.
I don't think Apple should have banned it: they should have just packaged it with an App to cure Bigotry.
So Apple is basically saying that Christians are wrong about a theological point. And yet the let Mecca-finder stay.
It seems to me that you should be charging Apple with bigotry against orthodox Christians.
I'm not sure. Let me ask him whether or not the NSA ran a warrantless-wiretapping operation at AT&T, and whether or not the CIA ferried people to other countries for torture. Someone dedicated to openness would undoubtedly answer that question clearly and unambiguously, right?
That feeling from when I was a kid that there was anything remotely honorable about my country's conduct.