The one time I came close to being empaneled on a jury, I wore a suit (as instructed in the jurors' handbook we were sent), and hardly any of the other men present did. Those of us who did were peremptorily dismissed by the plaintiff's lawyer, without even being asked any questions. My guess at the time was that the plaintiff was suing a business, and the lawyer didn't want any part of anyone who looked businesslike. But now that you mention it, maybe it was more that they didn't want any part of anyone who looked as if they had a clue.
In order to be a war criminal, one has to actually, y'know, commit a war crime. Merely working for or serving in the military, even if the overall action is deemed illegal, doesn't meet that standard. You referenced the Nuremberg trials; you should familiarize yourself with the Nuremberg principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles), paying particular attention to Principle VI and to the ruling from the Canadian Federal Court near the end of the article. The only one of the elements of Principle VI that could possibly apply would be the "Crimes against Peace", if we grant that the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal under international law (and that is not a given; I personally disapproved of US involvement in Iraq, and had mixed feelings about Afghanistan, but I don't think it's entirely clear that either was manifestly illegal). The Canadian ruling states, "An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace... the ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper."
Not every soldier or civilian auxiliary who participates in a war that is determined to be against international law can or will be held liable for war crimes.
In case you weren't aware of this, "Funny" moderation points do not actually increase one's karma. If a post has a mix of Insightful/Informative/Funny, only the non-Funny points actually count towards building karma. That's why, when I have points, I only give "Funny" points to ACs, and don't bother giving them anything else unless I think their post really deserves special attention. I'm much more willing to give a mildly insightful post an upmod if they have an account and therefore benefit from the karma boost.
If you're only talking about individual posts, sure, someone could get a +5 Funny, but then it would show up as such, and a reasonable person would know to take it with a grain of salt. I don't think anyone who has been here any length of time would see a post flagged "+5 Funny" and think it was valuable advice.:)
Um, did you notice that the one you "came up with the other day" is timestamped nearly 2 hours after the one you just replied to? Misplaced your time machine, maybe?
Probably not. But on the other hand, as far as I can tell, they aren't in the computer business, either.
This is clearly a frivolous lawsuit. AppleADay is in no way infringing on Apple, Inc's trademark. I hope Apple gets hit with the maximum penalties the law allows for such abuse of the legal system.
Whoever moderated the parent as "Troll" is an idiot. He is stating his beliefs. Yes, I agree, he's stating his opinions as if they were facts, but nonetheless, this is not a troll. It's an honest statement of what he believes and an honest attempt to contribute to the discussion.
I disagree with the substance of what he says, but moderating him down for it is not the way to respond to or refute it.
Well, with the workplace violence and harassment issues that make a big splash in the news, an employer could be found negligent if they don't do a certain amount of background checking. You hire some guy who posts neo-Nazi crap or BDSM stuff on his Facebook page, and then he turns around and does something to another employee, you're gonna be held liable for hiring him.
Police are, first and foremost, human beings. So, you'll find some that are very, very good, some that are very, very bad, and most that are just people trying to make a living and doing the best they can. They have a very tough job, and sometimes they will make mistakes.
I think - I hope! - that police abuse is indeed rare. But when it happens, and the media catches wind of it, it becomes very public and very noticeable. The police officers who do their jobs day in and day out without incident don't make the news. The ones who screw up royally and/or abuse their power do.
Degree requirements. The CS courses themselves, no. But any college offering bachelors' degrees will have General Education requirements, which involve taking courses in History, etc. The idea is that an education should be more than just career training.
Yes - *if* their budget for the position was so low that they had no chance of getting someone with a degree.
A fair point. But then, if they're that cheap/strapped for cash, they'd probably be outsourcing everything to India or China anyway (more likely the latter, these days).
The problem is, 1) this is in addition to their customary long hours of hard labor, not an alternative to it, and 2) it's being done for the personal profit of the prison guards, not to repay the government for the cost of their upkeep (that's what the hard labor is for). The guards have no right to make the prisoners their slaves to earn money for their personal benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
The one time I came close to being empaneled on a jury, I wore a suit (as instructed in the jurors' handbook we were sent), and hardly any of the other men present did. Those of us who did were peremptorily dismissed by the plaintiff's lawyer, without even being asked any questions. My guess at the time was that the plaintiff was suing a business, and the lawyer didn't want any part of anyone who looked businesslike. But now that you mention it, maybe it was more that they didn't want any part of anyone who looked as if they had a clue.
Oh, no, not again.
The amusing thing is that this means that God (or the gods) got worse at it the more practice He/They got....
In order to be a war criminal, one has to actually, y'know, commit a war crime. Merely working for or serving in the military, even if the overall action is deemed illegal, doesn't meet that standard. You referenced the Nuremberg trials; you should familiarize yourself with the Nuremberg principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles), paying particular attention to Principle VI and to the ruling from the Canadian Federal Court near the end of the article. The only one of the elements of Principle VI that could possibly apply would be the "Crimes against Peace", if we grant that the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal under international law (and that is not a given; I personally disapproved of US involvement in Iraq, and had mixed feelings about Afghanistan, but I don't think it's entirely clear that either was manifestly illegal). The Canadian ruling states, "An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace ... the ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper."
Not every soldier or civilian auxiliary who participates in a war that is determined to be against international law can or will be held liable for war crimes.
In case you weren't aware of this, "Funny" moderation points do not actually increase one's karma. If a post has a mix of Insightful/Informative/Funny, only the non-Funny points actually count towards building karma. That's why, when I have points, I only give "Funny" points to ACs, and don't bother giving them anything else unless I think their post really deserves special attention. I'm much more willing to give a mildly insightful post an upmod if they have an account and therefore benefit from the karma boost.
If you're only talking about individual posts, sure, someone could get a +5 Funny, but then it would show up as such, and a reasonable person would know to take it with a grain of salt. I don't think anyone who has been here any length of time would see a post flagged "+5 Funny" and think it was valuable advice. :)
Heresy! RTFA should be a -1 mod option! ;)
-Mike
Let's go shopping!
OUT!!!
Um, did you notice that the one you "came up with the other day" is timestamped nearly 2 hours after the one you just replied to? Misplaced your time machine, maybe?
Probably not. But on the other hand, as far as I can tell, they aren't in the computer business, either.
This is clearly a frivolous lawsuit. AppleADay is in no way infringing on Apple, Inc's trademark. I hope Apple gets hit with the maximum penalties the law allows for such abuse of the legal system.
-Mike
Whoever moderated the parent as "Troll" is an idiot. He is stating his beliefs. Yes, I agree, he's stating his opinions as if they were facts, but nonetheless, this is not a troll. It's an honest statement of what he believes and an honest attempt to contribute to the discussion.
I disagree with the substance of what he says, but moderating him down for it is not the way to respond to or refute it.
No. You are stating opinion.
Say, did I just hear something go " WHOOOOOOOOOSH!!! "?
Well, with the workplace violence and harassment issues that make a big splash in the news, an employer could be found negligent if they don't do a certain amount of background checking. You hire some guy who posts neo-Nazi crap or BDSM stuff on his Facebook page, and then he turns around and does something to another employee, you're gonna be held liable for hiring him.
Sometimes, you just can't win.
-Mike
They obviously misinterpreted his comment as a request to be modded up!
-Mike
Police are, first and foremost, human beings. So, you'll find some that are very, very good, some that are very, very bad, and most that are just people trying to make a living and doing the best they can. They have a very tough job, and sometimes they will make mistakes.
I think - I hope! - that police abuse is indeed rare. But when it happens, and the media catches wind of it, it becomes very public and very noticeable. The police officers who do their jobs day in and day out without incident don't make the news. The ones who screw up royally and/or abuse their power do.
-Mike
Hm. So being a celebrity is an offense potentially punishable by death now?
-Mike
Somebody doesn't understand the concept of a bilingual pun.
-Mike
Ironically, this is almost on-topic.
-Mike
Do you perhaps mean martial law?
Yeah, but it hasn't been 90 days since he left (Apr. 6, 2011) yet. So either they have a much shorter grace period or none at all.
Degree requirements. The CS courses themselves, no. But any college offering bachelors' degrees will have General Education requirements, which involve taking courses in History, etc. The idea is that an education should be more than just career training.
-Mike
A fair point. But then, if they're that cheap/strapped for cash, they'd probably be outsourcing everything to India or China anyway (more likely the latter, these days).
Yeah, but would HR let him in the door or even put his resume on your desk?
-Mike
The problem is, 1) this is in addition to their customary long hours of hard labor, not an alternative to it, and 2) it's being done for the personal profit of the prison guards, not to repay the government for the cost of their upkeep (that's what the hard labor is for). The guards have no right to make the prisoners their slaves to earn money for their personal benefit.
-Mike