The Sun is on the meridian at local noon by definition, but that isn't always, or even usually, the same thing as 12:00 on the clock.
Yes, and in court that would matter. I was agreeing only because I was trying to make a specific point and didn't want to cloud the issue nitpicking the OP's example. Thank you very much Captain Pedant, for pointing this out.
Stating that the sun is overhead at noon is a fact. Stating that the pictures "looked like" kiddie porn is stating that in your opinion they looked like kiddie porn. Unless you knew for a fact that they were unretouched images of actual minors you couldn't state that you know it's kiddie porn, just that you think it is, and that, my friend is an opinion. The law is very careful about such things, and with good reason. It's too easy to slip things over, just as you're suggesting a prosecutor would if they weren't.
I remember, once, about fifteen years ago, being on a jury in a civil case. A lawyer was not allowed to ask what a witness said during a specific telephone conversation without establishing a foundation for the question: he had to establish that the witness and the other person had held telephone conversations, that they did so on the date in question and that the witness remembered that conversation before he could ask about it. This is the way it works in real courts, instead of the highly abbreviated way it works on TV where they have to skip much of the detail to make the story fit into the time allotted. Tricks such as using a detective's opinion of an image as factual testimony is Right Out, and any DA who tried it more than once would probably be in Big Trouble with the judge.
I don't think you understand how the appeals process works. First, mistakes by the prosecution aren't important; only those by the judge are and second, there's no jury involved. You see, in an appeal, the facts are not the question because the trial jury is the sole arbiter of fact. Among other things, they saw the testimony given and can draw conclusions from the conduct of the witnesses that somebody reading a transcript never could. An appeal is strictly about interpretation of the law and how the trial judge conducted the trial. If the judge allows opinions from unqualified detectives to be given, that's grounds for appeal and, at the very least, a new trial. No, IANAL, but I have taken the time and effort to understand more about our court system than the average slashdotter. (I've also had more time to do so than the average, being in my late 50s instead of my early 20s.)
the prosecutor just asks a regular detective if the image appears real.
Before the detective can answer, the defense has objected because the detective is not an expert and thus not permitted to express an opinion on the stand. The judge then sustains the objection and the question is withdrawn.
What most people don't understand is that in court, an expert witness is somebody who knows enough about that subject to be allowed to express an opinion and only an expert witness can do so. As an example, a nurse can testify as to what happened in the OR but can't express an opinion as to whether or not what happened constituted malpractice. In this case, a regular detective can tell the court what he saw, but not express an opinion as to whether or not the images are real or CGI, because he doesn't have the training and experience to be qualified as an expert witness on the subject.
I can't speak for anybody else, of course, but I know what I'd be thinking if I were on the jury. After hearing both sides, I'd be wondering why, if it's so obvious, that the prosecution didn't put anybody on the stand to nail it down. To me, at least, saying "we don't need an expert for something so obvious" is just hand-waving to hide a hole in your argument. Of course, that's just me, and who knows how a real jury would think?
My argument would be that it's the prosecution's job to prove that they aren't CGI, and if they can't do that, they have no case. In fact, I'd move for acquittal the moment the prosecution rested without offering any proof that the images were real on the grounds that they hadn't proven their case.
prosecutors were switching from having experts go on the stand to 'prove' that the images are real, to just saying that the jury is competent to decide if the image is real or not
IANAL, but if I were, and I had to defend a case where the prosecution did that, I know what I'd say to the jury. I'd point out that the prosecution's job is to do whatever it can to prove its case, including offering testimony from whatever experts it can find. If they didn't offer any such testimony, the presumption is that they couldn't find an expert willing to testify that the images are real and if even experts aren't sure enough to say so under oath, there's considerable doubt that the prosecution's theory is right. If so, you can't be sure that my client is guilty, and must vote for acquittal.
Agreed. NAT is not a firewall, nor is it intended to be one in and of itself. However, a home LAN behind a router, with NAT and all port forwarding disabled is somewhat more secure than it would be if all the machines had public IP addresses, simply because it's much harder to locate any one specific machine. It's not a firewall, and shouldn't be confused with one, but it is one of the bricks from which a proper firewall can be constructed for home or small business use. The important thing, here, is that you must avoid expecting more from it than it can do.
Nothing new about that! The German war machine was fueled by ersatz gasolene made from coal during both world wars, and there was at least one experimental plant in the US after the second one. It didn't last long because prices were too low back then for it to be profitable. Considering today's prices, I'm surprised they're not doing it already, especially considering how much coal there is in the US just waiting to be dug up.
Thank you. Idle.slashdot.org is indeed a waste of time. Now, I'll never be bothered by it again. You have done a good deed and will, I'm sure soon be punished for it.
They also can't be disproven. That means that the idea can be used as needed as a convenient fiction. It's like the way navigation about the Earth is made easier by pretending that the Earth is the center of the universe, or engineers invoke the fictitious centrifugal force in their calculations. In this case, physicists invoke the concept of a different universe with slightly (or not so slightly) different laws to see what would happen and maybe learn something about the universe we live in.
That doesn't always get the results they want. I worked for a number of years for a company that had a policy of no rehires without BoD approval. This came after several rehires worked for us for a few months then jumped ship again. Essentially, they decided that it just wasn't worth the bother of taking back somebody who'd left.
Agreed. I can only do it because I have a good friend who's a hardware geek. (I'm software, personally.) However, I do think that those who either know how to build their own or have access to somebody willing to help don't deserve to complain about the high prices of off-the-shelf computers, or the Microsoft Tax.
I also agree that doing so doesn't stop Microsoft from abusing their position. It does, however, get you out from under their thumb.
Even back in the Bad Old Days I never had to pay the Microsoft tax when I upgraded. I went out, bought parts, put them together and had a new computer with whatever OS I wanted. Not only that, I had exactly the components I needed, not the ones somebody else decided that I'd want, and it cost much less, even if you left out my not paying for an OS I neither needed nor wanted.
Definitely "you aren't trying to express opinions that run counter to Slashdot's current groupthink".
Oh, I do from time to time, in what I consider a worthy cause. Mostly, the ones about everybody on Slashdot being assumed to be a Liberal Democrat, the presumed evil/stupidity/insanity (pick any three) of the current Administration and the idea that anybody who doesn't BELIEVE in global warming is to be shouted down with maximum hysteria. Yes, I get modded down for it, but I get modded up so much for other things that to paraphrase Rhett Butler, "Quite frankly, Jeiler, I don't give a damn."
In the David and Goliath story, David knocked out Goliath with a stone from a sling...
Since we're wandering a tad off-topic here, I thought I'd mention the Jewish myth that the stone was part of the original tablets of the Ten Commandments that Moses smashed on Mount Sinai. The rest, BTW, collected into one odd-shaped piece that was used as the cornerstone of Solomon's Temple.
That's not the only thing "redundant" can mean. It can also be used for a post that adds nothing to the discussion, or for a post that says nothing that wasn't already obvious from the summary. As an example, a post that consisted of, "Hey, guys, that's over a hundred thousand dollars!" would be redundant because it's nothing more than rephrasing part of TFA.
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Just for the record, that's your current.sig. I've been meaning to ask about it, but this is the first time it's not been off-topic. Just what is it "you aren't trying?" You aren't trying to be offensive, you aren't trying to troll people or you aren't trying to express opinions that run counter to Slashdot's current groupthink? I've been wondering because what I try to do is write posts I'd like to read, which means that I find them interesting, insightful or bringing new information into the discussion. (Sometimes, it means they're funny.) Thus, for me, if I haven't been up-modded lately I'm not trying, so I'm not sure what you mean.
You misunderstood. I voted for whoever I wanted for President, and wrote in a vote for Sweet Dick Wittington for Vice President, a different office. Thus, I wasn't voting for two people for the same office. That's why he ran the way he did: people could vote for him (for fun) without throwing away their votes. And yes, after being a poll worker for over ten years, I know how write-in votes work.
It took me two days to get ntfs-3g to work because of some stupid missing library and I was using the latest official Kubuntu CD release.
Which tells me two things: first, that you weren't doing it right and second, that you never bothered to ask about it because if you had you'd have been told the right way. To show just how much of a mucking foron you were, I'll tell you, and everybody else reading this the Right Way. Instead of downloading the.deb, trying to install it and running into Dependency Hell, you use apt-get to install it. Unlike what you did, apt-get resolves dependencies, downloads the appropriate.debs and installs them without your having to do anything. It Just Works. BTW, the equivalent for an.rpm based system such as RHEL or Fedora is yum.
Let me rephrase that, then: all you need to do is install ntfs-3g if it isn't already and specify it as the filesystem. Many, if not all Linux distros come with it pre-installed. That doesn't negate your basic premise, and I agree with it. However, more and more, Linux does just work, more than Windows does. When was the last time you had to install special Linux drivers for a thumb drive or a digital camera?
Call me back when real 3D drivers install as easily as they do in Windows.
Having trouble with ATI or nVidia drivers? Don't blame Linux, blame ATI and nVidia for not releasing the specs so that OSS drivers can be written. All you get is binary blobs, which is better than you get for the newer Lexmark printers because Lexmark refuses to support Linux.
Thank you for that link to the Compiz screenshots. I just sent it off to a friend who's a computer columnist, and likes to write about the neat wallpaper effects in Vista. I'll be interested in seeing what he thinks about Compiz. Me, I'd never go back, either to Windows or Metacity!
kernel compiles are actually one of the more painless parts of dealing with Gentoo, at least comparatively speaking. Certainly one of the scarier ones though.
I still remember back when the only way you could upgrade the kernel was by downloading the source, compiling it and installing it. Conventional wisdom back then was that if you weren't having trouble that an upgrade would fix and you didn't need some new feature, you might as well stick with the old one. Now, I use Fedora and when a new kernel comes out, I get it precompiled and ready to go, and I'd never consider custom compiling a kernel. BTDTGTTS and don't want to do it again, which is one of the reasons I'd never use Gentoo. YMMV and obviously does.
The Fairness Doctrine isn't. All throughout it's history, it's been used by whoever was in power at the time to silence their enemies, or at least quiet them down some.
Not always. About twenty years ago, maybe thirty, a DJ in LA decided to have some fun with the Presidential Primaries by running for Vice President as a write-in. That way, you could vote for him without negating your vote for whoever you wanted as your party's candidate for President. There was a station in Riverside CA (I think) giving free airtime to all candidates, and under the Fairness Doctrine, that included him. They arranged his time so that it was during his regular show, so that he appeared at the same time on two different stations in two different markets. Kinda neat.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and in court that would matter. I was agreeing only because I was trying to make a specific point and didn't want to cloud the issue nitpicking the OP's example. Thank you very much Captain Pedant, for pointing this out.
I remember, once, about fifteen years ago, being on a jury in a civil case. A lawyer was not allowed to ask what a witness said during a specific telephone conversation without establishing a foundation for the question: he had to establish that the witness and the other person had held telephone conversations, that they did so on the date in question and that the witness remembered that conversation before he could ask about it. This is the way it works in real courts, instead of the highly abbreviated way it works on TV where they have to skip much of the detail to make the story fit into the time allotted. Tricks such as using a detective's opinion of an image as factual testimony is Right Out, and any DA who tried it more than once would probably be in Big Trouble with the judge.
I don't think you understand how the appeals process works. First, mistakes by the prosecution aren't important; only those by the judge are and second, there's no jury involved. You see, in an appeal, the facts are not the question because the trial jury is the sole arbiter of fact. Among other things, they saw the testimony given and can draw conclusions from the conduct of the witnesses that somebody reading a transcript never could. An appeal is strictly about interpretation of the law and how the trial judge conducted the trial. If the judge allows opinions from unqualified detectives to be given, that's grounds for appeal and, at the very least, a new trial. No, IANAL, but I have taken the time and effort to understand more about our court system than the average slashdotter. (I've also had more time to do so than the average, being in my late 50s instead of my early 20s.)
Before the detective can answer, the defense has objected because the detective is not an expert and thus not permitted to express an opinion on the stand. The judge then sustains the objection and the question is withdrawn.
What most people don't understand is that in court, an expert witness is somebody who knows enough about that subject to be allowed to express an opinion and only an expert witness can do so. As an example, a nurse can testify as to what happened in the OR but can't express an opinion as to whether or not what happened constituted malpractice. In this case, a regular detective can tell the court what he saw, but not express an opinion as to whether or not the images are real or CGI, because he doesn't have the training and experience to be qualified as an expert witness on the subject.
I can't speak for anybody else, of course, but I know what I'd be thinking if I were on the jury. After hearing both sides, I'd be wondering why, if it's so obvious, that the prosecution didn't put anybody on the stand to nail it down. To me, at least, saying "we don't need an expert for something so obvious" is just hand-waving to hide a hole in your argument. Of course, that's just me, and who knows how a real jury would think?
My argument would be that it's the prosecution's job to prove that they aren't CGI, and if they can't do that, they have no case. In fact, I'd move for acquittal the moment the prosecution rested without offering any proof that the images were real on the grounds that they hadn't proven their case.
IANAL, but if I were, and I had to defend a case where the prosecution did that, I know what I'd say to the jury. I'd point out that the prosecution's job is to do whatever it can to prove its case, including offering testimony from whatever experts it can find. If they didn't offer any such testimony, the presumption is that they couldn't find an expert willing to testify that the images are real and if even experts aren't sure enough to say so under oath, there's considerable doubt that the prosecution's theory is right. If so, you can't be sure that my client is guilty, and must vote for acquittal.
Agreed. NAT is not a firewall, nor is it intended to be one in and of itself. However, a home LAN behind a router, with NAT and all port forwarding disabled is somewhat more secure than it would be if all the machines had public IP addresses, simply because it's much harder to locate any one specific machine. It's not a firewall, and shouldn't be confused with one, but it is one of the bricks from which a proper firewall can be constructed for home or small business use. The important thing, here, is that you must avoid expecting more from it than it can do.
Nothing new about that! The German war machine was fueled by ersatz gasolene made from coal during both world wars, and there was at least one experimental plant in the US after the second one. It didn't last long because prices were too low back then for it to be profitable. Considering today's prices, I'm surprised they're not doing it already, especially considering how much coal there is in the US just waiting to be dug up.
Thank you. Idle.slashdot.org is indeed a waste of time. Now, I'll never be bothered by it again. You have done a good deed and will, I'm sure soon be punished for it.
They also can't be disproven. That means that the idea can be used as needed as a convenient fiction. It's like the way navigation about the Earth is made easier by pretending that the Earth is the center of the universe, or engineers invoke the fictitious centrifugal force in their calculations. In this case, physicists invoke the concept of a different universe with slightly (or not so slightly) different laws to see what would happen and maybe learn something about the universe we live in.
That doesn't always get the results they want. I worked for a number of years for a company that had a policy of no rehires without BoD approval. This came after several rehires worked for us for a few months then jumped ship again. Essentially, they decided that it just wasn't worth the bother of taking back somebody who'd left.
Agreed. I can only do it because I have a good friend who's a hardware geek. (I'm software, personally.) However, I do think that those who either know how to build their own or have access to somebody willing to help don't deserve to complain about the high prices of off-the-shelf computers, or the Microsoft Tax.
I also agree that doing so doesn't stop Microsoft from abusing their position. It does, however, get you out from under their thumb.
Even back in the Bad Old Days I never had to pay the Microsoft tax when I upgraded. I went out, bought parts, put them together and had a new computer with whatever OS I wanted. Not only that, I had exactly the components I needed, not the ones somebody else decided that I'd want, and it cost much less, even if you left out my not paying for an OS I neither needed nor wanted.
Oh, I do from time to time, in what I consider a worthy cause. Mostly, the ones about everybody on Slashdot being assumed to be a Liberal Democrat, the presumed evil/stupidity/insanity (pick any three) of the current Administration and the idea that anybody who doesn't BELIEVE in global warming is to be shouted down with maximum hysteria. Yes, I get modded down for it, but I get modded up so much for other things that to paraphrase Rhett Butler, "Quite frankly, Jeiler, I don't give a damn."
Since we're wandering a tad off-topic here, I thought I'd mention the Jewish myth that the stone was part of the original tablets of the Ten Commandments that Moses smashed on Mount Sinai. The rest, BTW, collected into one odd-shaped piece that was used as the cornerstone of Solomon's Temple.
That's not the only thing "redundant" can mean. It can also be used for a post that adds nothing to the discussion, or for a post that says nothing that wasn't already obvious from the summary. As an example, a post that consisted of, "Hey, guys, that's over a hundred thousand dollars!" would be redundant because it's nothing more than rephrasing part of TFA.
Just for the record, that's your current .sig. I've been meaning to ask about it, but this is the first time it's not been off-topic. Just what is it "you aren't trying?" You aren't trying to be offensive, you aren't trying to troll people or you aren't trying to express opinions that run counter to Slashdot's current groupthink? I've been wondering because what I try to do is write posts I'd like to read, which means that I find them interesting, insightful or bringing new information into the discussion. (Sometimes, it means they're funny.) Thus, for me, if I haven't been up-modded lately I'm not trying, so I'm not sure what you mean.
You misunderstood. I voted for whoever I wanted for President, and wrote in a vote for Sweet Dick Wittington for Vice President, a different office. Thus, I wasn't voting for two people for the same office. That's why he ran the way he did: people could vote for him (for fun) without throwing away their votes. And yes, after being a poll worker for over ten years, I know how write-in votes work.
Which tells me two things: first, that you weren't doing it right and second, that you never bothered to ask about it because if you had you'd have been told the right way. To show just how much of a mucking foron you were, I'll tell you, and everybody else reading this the Right Way. Instead of downloading the .deb, trying to install it and running into Dependency Hell, you use apt-get to install it. Unlike what you did, apt-get resolves dependencies, downloads the appropriate .debs and installs them without your having to do anything. It Just Works. BTW, the equivalent for an .rpm based system such as RHEL or Fedora is yum.
Let me rephrase that, then: all you need to do is install ntfs-3g if it isn't already and specify it as the filesystem. Many, if not all Linux distros come with it pre-installed. That doesn't negate your basic premise, and I agree with it. However, more and more, Linux does just work, more than Windows does. When was the last time you had to install special Linux drivers for a thumb drive or a digital camera?
Having trouble with ATI or nVidia drivers? Don't blame Linux, blame ATI and nVidia for not releasing the specs so that OSS drivers can be written. All you get is binary blobs, which is better than you get for the newer Lexmark printers because Lexmark refuses to support Linux.
Thank you for that link to the Compiz screenshots. I just sent it off to a friend who's a computer columnist, and likes to write about the neat wallpaper effects in Vista. I'll be interested in seeing what he thinks about Compiz. Me, I'd never go back, either to Windows or Metacity!
I still remember back when the only way you could upgrade the kernel was by downloading the source, compiling it and installing it. Conventional wisdom back then was that if you weren't having trouble that an upgrade would fix and you didn't need some new feature, you might as well stick with the old one. Now, I use Fedora and when a new kernel comes out, I get it precompiled and ready to go, and I'd never consider custom compiling a kernel. BTDTGTTS and don't want to do it again, which is one of the reasons I'd never use Gentoo. YMMV and obviously does.
Not always. About twenty years ago, maybe thirty, a DJ in LA decided to have some fun with the Presidential Primaries by running for Vice President as a write-in. That way, you could vote for him without negating your vote for whoever you wanted as your party's candidate for President. There was a station in Riverside CA (I think) giving free airtime to all candidates, and under the Fairness Doctrine, that included him. They arranged his time so that it was during his regular show, so that he appeared at the same time on two different stations in two different markets. Kinda neat.