It seems people assume that "The Law" only deals with things like murder. I imagine you'd be quite annoyed if you lived in Tennessee and had eight daughters, all of whom were carted off to jail for prostitution, you sent to prison for several years for running a brothel all the while the "jury of your peers" full well knowing they're your danged daughters, but aw shucks, Hos, the law here done say eight womenfolk under one roofs' a whore-house. Well, off they go and you with 'em! But, go ahead and write your rep from your cell while your neighbors all kvetch about "I knew he's alright, but you know the law's the law and that's all there is too it, yup."
Mercifully, there are some people who aren't quite that vacant.
"Taking it into your own hands because you don't like it, is just as bad as a bad law itself."
I think you miss what is going on here. A mistrial is when the jury doesn't reach a verdict. For "nullification" to work, a verdict must be reached, not just hung by one lone hold-out.
I would challenge you to get 12 random strangers in a room to decide what flavor of coffee should be served. If those same people can decide unanimously that justice is not being served, I'm inclined to believe them and find it pretty scary how many people think they those people should be crushed under the heel of unwavering law. That's a pretty far departure from what a certain group of people had in mind 200-odd years ago...
Disagree with a definition used by the prosecution. They will invariably try to convince the jury that if abstract concept X=Y, then if the evidence meets the definition of Y, you must convict. That's a load of rubbish and they know it. So, you challenge that definition very coyly with judge, being sure to question "is that REALLY the law? I can imagine MANY cases where Y would be perfectly understandable and certainly NOT=X and I'd have to seek an acquittal." The judge will then be forced to admit that, yes, you could, although he/she may not actually use the term "nullification," the concept will be made clear enough... and you will be promptly excused, I can assure you.
...which is balanced quite nicely by those jurors who refused to convict fugitive slaves.
The point is ensuring the government is "of, by and for the people," no matter how loathsome those people may be. Once goverment, or it's laws, becomes above the people, you're not living in a democracy. Some people would argue, some of them quite convincingly even in fairly lofty academic circles, that we've already crossed well over that line.
Oddly enough, if you look at the creation of our legal system, the authors were quite intent on creating one whose SOLE purpose was to ensure justice, not utility and certainly not expedience.
You know, the reason why it is the Department of JUSTICE, not the Department of LAW.
I'll never have to serve on a jury as I find it my civic duty to ask a question relevant to the case that forces the judge to explain that concept to those jurors who _are_ allowed to stay. The job of the jury is to ensure that _justice_ is done, not that the law is followed. If they determine that application of the law is itself unjust, they are absolutely 100% in their rights to find "not guilty," even if every single shred of evidence screams out otherwise.
...a great deal of people haven't STOPPED speaking up. Just because they've been unsuccessful at stopping the tide of American politics doesn't mean they've been sitting in their barcaloungers the whole time.
In China, it's about filtering Liberty(tm). In the United States, it's about saving the children.
Don't you believe in Liberty? Don't you want to save the children?
If enough people said mass suicide was the only way to "save the children," I fear millions would do it, whether a la Logan's Run or that terrible, terrible episode of Stargate. Who cares about details if it's about the kids...
...which would add $100-250 to the "budget box." Guess what DOES come with the MacMini, Mr. Smartypants?
No, I don't own a single Mac, so no fanboyism here, just a big 'ol dose of obviousness...not that many people I know actually PAY for their Windows discs, but still.
To avoid such earth-shaking revalations
on
Inescapable Data
·
· Score: 1
...one pretty much would have to have stayed indoors...on an island...without electricity...for the last 150 years.
Economics is routinely reduced to Demand vs. Supply, but that's simplistic. There are too many other conditions aside from price -- the "whys," if you will -- on which the economic players from producer to consumer base a great deal of their behavior, having very little to do with simple supply (in this case, virtually unlimited) and demand (ditto) unless you define "supply" as the intersection between the actual product and all of the combined conditions, which get's rather silly as they are particular to each actor.
Sure, you can say there is demand for "Non-DRM-crippled HD copies of The Wizard of Oz" yet there is no supply, thus the black market is encouraged to exist. Well, sort of, actually, that's almost backwards. With entertainment, it really is a supply-side issue because demand is nearly entirely driven by supply--e.g. if there was no supply of Britney Spears, there'd be no demand either. The real issue here is that people will pay for DRM-crippled media--that's what a "Movie Theater" basically is. You pay your ten bucks and get to see the flick once, in one place, and you have to pay five bucks for a Coke. People still buy it. There is a price-point here at which people will buy DRM-crippled content and the hardware. It may be $0.05, but it exists.
and there in lies the rub. I have all the software and equipment necessary to rip DVDs and CDs. I have so much unused bandwidth, I could be sucking down torrents 24/7 and I have three servers sitting in my living room with plenty of space. A TB will hold roughly 200 full-res DVDs. Well, the drives alone cost me $5/flick (for cheap drives), plus the hassle of finding and downloading massive files and hoping they aren't crappy rips or incomplete, let alone the issue of being "caught," not to mention with enough traffic, it would get in the way of the other things that make me pay for broadband. Add to that, it takes more time to pirate than it does to buy. When my terabyte fills up and I want to toss the thing into a library, voila, I'm spending four bucks on a blank DVD--and time to burn it. In the end, do I just buy a $15 DVD or spend $85 of my time and $15 in hardware and materials for it?
It's not the copy protection that keeps me from pirating, it's the simple utility of it. Black markets develop because things desired are either made difficult to acquire or are made artificially more expensive than their perceived worth, be it by price or prison.
This misses the entire point of policing and prosecution. They are not there to protect, they are there to deter, to raise the stakes of diverging from community standards.
Yes, you're right. Punishment will not stop *ANYTHING*. Barring totalitarian fascism, "punishment" is not intended to eradicate undesirable behavior. It is merely intended to reduce its frequency. To that end, there is nothing anyone can do to reduce that frequency to zero. At a certain point you just have to accept that, basically, shit happens and that's why we have "insurance."
I'm perfectly capable of accomplishing the task. The point is that in many environments not only are your blocked from installing software, succeeding in doing so is grounds for termination--and OGG is hardly a widely used standard outside of the *nix world, so choosing this format effectively alienates a pretty wide workday audience.
Now that I'm at work on a Windows machine, they've chosen a format that I can't use. Why not just use f'ing mpeg? In these threads where people interminably rant about "why Linux isn't mainstream" and "why Joe Sixpack will never get it" we get the glitzy eye-candy gee-whiz demo in !#%ing OGG?!?!
Emails like the one referenced above can lead to things like half your partners leaving, golden parachutes in hand...with your customers...en masse...to another firm...the same firm...together....oddly enough, the same firm made famous by the "hard at work doing jack" dude.
I was laid off from a cushy $75k IT job and kept getting these handy little fliers from my local US equivalent of the JobCentre -- "You could be a machinist! Sign up NOW!!" Uhm... no thanks.
Sans some kind of legislation like that, I think everyone in such offices should go the route of this lovely lady. Totally useless. Either make it useful or can it completely.
Oh, I'm not devaluing his advice. What I question is the utility of the advice at the point in time when such relocation is possible. Sure, there will always be "winners" who will bang something out to make daddy proud, but there's kind of a sick S&M trip going on here when the "losers" go home as if "real" businesses are built in this sort of X-Treme sport mockery. It reminds me of the "Drawn Together" episode with the Louie Anderson-esque riff on Donald Trump where every ten seconds he, erm, "discharges" his sage advice all over his nubile contestants.
This is basically a game show where the real winner is the host and the contestants, winners and losers alike, are essentially arbitrary.
Basically, middle-aged successful people are trying to re-live their "gee, what if *I* had a million bucks when I was 22" youth. Well, that's great, but really, not that many great--and complete--ideas really do come from fresh college [under]grads. It takes experience, whether in advanced degrees or out working in "the real world" to get the combination of [K]nowledge [S]kills and [A]bility to make a business work. I mean, at the point when you're barely qualified to be a decent employ-EE, how the hell can you reasonably expect to be a decent employ-ER?
It would be far more realistic to design something like this around the assumption that you *will* be over 30, married, with kids and solid decent paying job (that you can hopefully self-fund with) and teach people how to start a business in THAT scenario. Chances are, by the time most of the attendees in these things actually get their collective sh*t together, they WILL be in that situation. But, by the time their in that situation, they're no longer sexy wunderkinder that make Daddy Warbucks stiff and proud...and part owner.
The distinction between the language of the masses and the language of the educated was my entire point...and the entire point of the Vulgate, so, yes, it is safe to assume that was the reference I was making.
Reminds me of a scene from Designing Women:
"So, where y'all from?" "A place where we do not end our sentences in prepositions." "Oh, I'm so sorry. Where y'all from, bitch?"
Slashdot Mirror
Not enforcing them is a damned good way to begin to correct them.
Unless we're going to dutifully throw people in the clink for things like these:
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states
It seems people assume that "The Law" only deals with things like murder. I imagine you'd be quite annoyed if you lived in Tennessee and had eight daughters, all of whom were carted off to jail for prostitution, you sent to prison for several years for running a brothel all the while the "jury of your peers" full well knowing they're your danged daughters, but aw shucks, Hos, the law here done say eight womenfolk under one roofs' a whore-house. Well, off they go and you with 'em! But, go ahead and write your rep from your cell while your neighbors all kvetch about "I knew he's alright, but you know the law's the law and that's all there is too it, yup."
Mercifully, there are some people who aren't quite that vacant.
I have no representation in either the House or the Senate. Quelle difference!
"Taking it into your own hands because you don't like it, is just as bad as a bad law itself."
I think you miss what is going on here. A mistrial is when the jury doesn't reach a verdict. For "nullification" to work, a verdict must be reached, not just hung by one lone hold-out.
I would challenge you to get 12 random strangers in a room to decide what flavor of coffee should be served. If those same people can decide unanimously that justice is not being served, I'm inclined to believe them and find it pretty scary how many people think they those people should be crushed under the heel of unwavering law. That's a pretty far departure from what a certain group of people had in mind 200-odd years ago...
Americans seem to be getting very good at that lately.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be draped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis
Disagree with a definition used by the prosecution. They will invariably try to convince the jury that if abstract concept X=Y, then if the evidence meets the definition of Y, you must convict. That's a load of rubbish and they know it. So, you challenge that definition very coyly with judge, being sure to question "is that REALLY the law? I can imagine MANY cases where Y would be perfectly understandable and certainly NOT=X and I'd have to seek an acquittal." The judge will then be forced to admit that, yes, you could, although he/she may not actually use the term "nullification," the concept will be made clear enough... and you will be promptly excused, I can assure you.
...which is balanced quite nicely by those jurors who refused to convict fugitive slaves.
The point is ensuring the government is "of, by and for the people," no matter how loathsome those people may be. Once goverment, or it's laws, becomes above the people, you're not living in a democracy. Some people would argue, some of them quite convincingly even in fairly lofty academic circles, that we've already crossed well over that line.
Oddly enough, if you look at the creation of our legal system, the authors were quite intent on creating one whose SOLE purpose was to ensure justice, not utility and certainly not expedience.
You know, the reason why it is the Department of JUSTICE, not the Department of LAW.
It's a Good Thing.
I'll never have to serve on a jury as I find it my civic duty to ask a question relevant to the case that forces the judge to explain that concept to those jurors who _are_ allowed to stay. The job of the jury is to ensure that _justice_ is done, not that the law is followed. If they determine that application of the law is itself unjust, they are absolutely 100% in their rights to find "not guilty," even if every single shred of evidence screams out otherwise.
...a great deal of people haven't STOPPED speaking up. Just because they've been unsuccessful at stopping the tide of American politics doesn't mean they've been sitting in their barcaloungers the whole time.
In China, it's about filtering Liberty(tm).
In the United States, it's about saving the children.
Don't you believe in Liberty? Don't you want to save the children?
If enough people said mass suicide was the only way to "save the children," I fear millions would do it, whether a la Logan's Run or that terrible, terrible episode of Stargate. Who cares about details if it's about the kids...
Honestly...
...never heard of it.
Care to cite a source for that doozey?
...which would add $100-250 to the "budget box." Guess what DOES come with the MacMini, Mr. Smartypants?
No, I don't own a single Mac, so no fanboyism here, just a big 'ol dose of obviousness...not that many people I know actually PAY for their Windows discs, but still.
...one pretty much would have to have stayed indoors...on an island...without electricity...for the last 150 years.
Economics is routinely reduced to Demand vs. Supply, but that's simplistic. There are too many other conditions aside from price -- the "whys," if you will -- on which the economic players from producer to consumer base a great deal of their behavior, having very little to do with simple supply (in this case, virtually unlimited) and demand (ditto) unless you define "supply" as the intersection between the actual product and all of the combined conditions, which get's rather silly as they are particular to each actor.
Sure, you can say there is demand for "Non-DRM-crippled HD copies of The Wizard of Oz" yet there is no supply, thus the black market is encouraged to exist. Well, sort of, actually, that's almost backwards. With entertainment, it really is a supply-side issue because demand is nearly entirely driven by supply--e.g. if there was no supply of Britney Spears, there'd be no demand either. The real issue here is that people will pay for DRM-crippled media--that's what a "Movie Theater" basically is. You pay your ten bucks and get to see the flick once, in one place, and you have to pay five bucks for a Coke. People still buy it. There is a price-point here at which people will buy DRM-crippled content and the hardware. It may be $0.05, but it exists.
and there in lies the rub. I have all the software and equipment necessary to rip DVDs and CDs. I have so much unused bandwidth, I could be sucking down torrents 24/7 and I have three servers sitting in my living room with plenty of space. A TB will hold roughly 200 full-res DVDs. Well, the drives alone cost me $5/flick (for cheap drives), plus the hassle of finding and downloading massive files and hoping they aren't crappy rips or incomplete, let alone the issue of being "caught," not to mention with enough traffic, it would get in the way of the other things that make me pay for broadband. Add to that, it takes more time to pirate than it does to buy. When my terabyte fills up and I want to toss the thing into a library, voila, I'm spending four bucks on a blank DVD--and time to burn it. In the end, do I just buy a $15 DVD or spend $85 of my time and $15 in hardware and materials for it?
It's not the copy protection that keeps me from pirating, it's the simple utility of it. Black markets develop because things desired are either made difficult to acquire or are made artificially more expensive than their perceived worth, be it by price or prison.
This is no different.
This misses the entire point of policing and prosecution. They are not there to protect, they are there to deter, to raise the stakes of diverging from community standards.
Yes, you're right. Punishment will not stop *ANYTHING*. Barring totalitarian fascism, "punishment" is not intended to eradicate undesirable behavior. It is merely intended to reduce its frequency. To that end, there is nothing anyone can do to reduce that frequency to zero. At a certain point you just have to accept that, basically, shit happens and that's why we have "insurance."
I'm perfectly capable of accomplishing the task. The point is that in many environments not only are your blocked from installing software, succeeding in doing so is grounds for termination--and OGG is hardly a widely used standard outside of the *nix world, so choosing this format effectively alienates a pretty wide workday audience.
Now that I'm at work on a Windows machine, they've chosen a format that I can't use. Why not just use f'ing mpeg? In these threads where people interminably rant about "why Linux isn't mainstream" and "why Joe Sixpack will never get it" we get the glitzy eye-candy gee-whiz demo in !#%ing OGG?!?!
Honestly...
Seriously. That made no sense.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=107521981976 0
...oddly enough, the same firm made famous by the "hard at work doing jack" dude.
http://www.aabany.org/dewey_ballantine.htm
Emails like the one referenced above can lead to things like half your partners leaving, golden parachutes in hand...with your customers...en masse...to another firm...the same firm...together.
Gotta love legal.
I was laid off from a cushy $75k IT job and kept getting these handy little fliers from my local US equivalent of the JobCentre -- "You could be a machinist! Sign up NOW!!" Uhm... no thanks.
Sans some kind of legislation like that, I think everyone in such offices should go the route of this lovely lady. Totally useless. Either make it useful or can it completely.
Oh, I'm not devaluing his advice. What I question is the utility of the advice at the point in time when such relocation is possible. Sure, there will always be "winners" who will bang something out to make daddy proud, but there's kind of a sick S&M trip going on here when the "losers" go home as if "real" businesses are built in this sort of X-Treme sport mockery. It reminds me of the "Drawn Together" episode with the Louie Anderson-esque riff on Donald Trump where every ten seconds he, erm, "discharges" his sage advice all over his nubile contestants.
This is basically a game show where the real winner is the host and the contestants, winners and losers alike, are essentially arbitrary.
Basically, middle-aged successful people are trying to re-live their "gee, what if *I* had a million bucks when I was 22" youth. Well, that's great, but really, not that many great--and complete--ideas really do come from fresh college [under]grads. It takes experience, whether in advanced degrees or out working in "the real world" to get the combination of [K]nowledge [S]kills and [A]bility to make a business work. I mean, at the point when you're barely qualified to be a decent employ-EE, how the hell can you reasonably expect to be a decent employ-ER?
It would be far more realistic to design something like this around the assumption that you *will* be over 30, married, with kids and solid decent paying job (that you can hopefully self-fund with) and teach people how to start a business in THAT scenario. Chances are, by the time most of the attendees in these things actually get their collective sh*t together, they WILL be in that situation. But, by the time their in that situation, they're no longer sexy wunderkinder that make Daddy Warbucks stiff and proud...and part owner.
The distinction between the language of the masses and the language of the educated was my entire point...and the entire point of the Vulgate, so, yes, it is safe to assume that was the reference I was making.
Reminds me of a scene from Designing Women:
"So, where y'all from?"
"A place where we do not end our sentences in prepositions."
"Oh, I'm so sorry. Where y'all from, bitch?"