If a punishment IS just and deserved, then yes, they may. However, I maintain that an individual can rarely, if ever, determine if the accused is guilty of a crime without due process. First, the charges must be presented. In this instance, Maureen has given out private information concerning Pamela. First, the prosecution must posit the notion that the accused has broken the law in some manner, and they must be very specific about their assertion. Then, they must present evidence that supports their claim. A judge AND jury (in most situations) are required to witness this. The defense must then work to disprove these claims, presenting other evidence or casting the prosecutions evidence into doubt.
The separatation of the prosecution, the judge, and the jury into separate groups of people is extremely important. The jury must remain as impartial as is humanly possible until they are asked to render a verdict. The judge cannot favor one side over the other, regardless of personal feelings. How can any average person do all of these jobs? it's not likely.
To get back to the real part of your question (is justice justice, or is it what an authority happens to do): justice is justice. The reason I advocate the judical process so heavily is so that trained professionals (judges who do not favor one side over the other (regardless of his personal feelings) and also comprehend the meaning of the specifics of a law (an average person probably won't) along with a prosecution and potentially a defense) are there to do their jobs within the basic framework of our legal system. They ensure that our rights are preserved and all rules are adhered to.
If, in some odd instance, a person was accused of committing a crime and the people decided to hold his trial themselves, and they were lucky enough to have a retired judge who knew his duty, and lawyers who knew theirs, and a jury to work things out, and the trial was publically available and recorded for posterity AND the accused was allowed to appeal to a higher power, then I would not bat an eye if the US legal system was not used. But, essentially, we've just recreated the United States legal system for the sake of having one trial; why not just have the trial IN the legal system, if that is the case?
Because the common person can be so incensed by thoughts of vengeance that they don't respect the rights of the accused. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. Most people make up their mind in 15 seconds wehther someone is guilty or not. Letting the public go willy nilly punishing "criminals" (or people they just don't like) would be insanity. Lynch mobs are never a good thing. It is our adherence to due process of law in the pursuit of justice that makes us a civilized people. Otherwise we're just animals.
Well, it's either express my dismay of your inability to be circumspect in your actions or let it accelerate to a point that congress gets their pompous asses involved and passes some draconian law that does nothing but piss everyone off.
There's nothing wrong with society policing itself when it comes to morality. I can't MAKE you follow my morals, but I can talk about them. I suggest that, if you don't like it, you exercise your right to, say, not listen?
I think it all boils down to intent. What was the intent of whitepages.com in divulging this information? A public service (or at least a private service funding public accessibility through advertising). What was the intent of the poster of the addresses? One can only assume to get angry geeks to call this woman and give her a piece of their mind. That's at best. At worst, he intended some deranged penguinian to break into her house and kill her. The former borders on illegal; if it was just one person, or a few people, that's one thing, but when potentially hundreds of phone calls a day start pouring in, that's aggregate harassment (I just made that term up (or at least I think I did), just an FYI). Whether or not this is illegal is not the point. It's wrong.
That isn't the point. He's coming forth with this information in an attempt to inform others of this contact information. He's participating in their potentially illegal acts. Even if a criminal case could not be brought against him, a civil case could. Regardless of whether this happened or not isn't the case. Leave the crazies to their own devices - let THEM do the work in tracking this woman down and killing her and turning her ass into a hat. The only thing you're doing by divulging this information is saying "hey, I really hope someone fucks with her". Don't deny it, don't sugar coat it. Since that's the case, you are very much so morally wrong, if not legally wrong.
No, but the phone company also isn't releasing one particular phone number and address at a time in which an enraged minority element may do them physical harm. I guarantee if a phone company DID do that, they'd be sued for mad cash. When you willingly volunteer specific information, knowing the consequences of giving up said information could result in the act of grave harm, you probably will be found partially responsible for the act in a civil court. Aside from that, however, it's still morally wrong. Even if it was completely okay, legally, to do this, that doesn't mean you should do it.
Yes. So? You know what else is public information? Watching someone in public walk into a private residence. Guess what? It's perfectly fucking legal. That doesn't mean it's unethical, jackass. What kind of morals did your parents teach you? If your actions, no matter whether they're legal or not, help contribute to the ending of someone's life, guess what? It's fucking wrong. It doesn't matter whether you can go to jail or not. That isn't the point.
But, since you didn't realize that already, I guess explaining it is just a waste of time. No wonder this country is so fucked up - no one bothers to be circumspect about their actions unless they run the chance of going to jail or being sued.
Dude, uncool. Maureen is a bitch. There's no question there. But you can't put her life in danger just because she put someone else's life in danger. That's for the justice system to do, not a vigilante with a grudge.
Lucas said flat out in some magazine-or-other that he was not doing the final 3, and since he, himself wasn't doing the final 3, he wasn't going to allow them to be made, either.
Things may have changed since then, but that's the last I heard of it.
Wow. Imagine that. Someone did her job for her while she was too busy throwing a temper tantrum, and now she's jealous that she didn't get around to it first.
I noticed a bunch of problems with my emusic.com mp3s. The ends of songs were shifted over a second or so. The end of song 1 would be at the beginning of song 2, etc, etc.
Err... republicans have been in pretty much complete control for almost 4 and a half years now. The government has gotten a LOT bigger than it was under the Democrats.
I think in the old days you were right. But now it's more like this:
Democrats: For any problem the poor and middle class have, the solution is bigger government.
Republicans: For any problem the ultra rich have, the solution is bigger government.
Libertarians: For any problem, the solution is smaller government.
The only time I've ever gotten BSODs on Win2k or XP is when hardware has failed (RAM and the like). I would imagine that's where the RSOD would come into play. Thats when your computer is really dead. The BSOD would be for things like "important system files have become corrupted by ninjas" and the like. That's when it's just mostly dead, but you can repair it quickly and easily.
Oh, I should also note that when I say "admit you're all a bunch of...", I wasn't referring to Republican voters or supporters. I was referring to the politicians.
That's what makes the Republican politicians so bad, though. They try to act like they're better or something. Just admit you're all a bunch of dirty, backstabbing, corporate whores and be done with it. It's bad enough when someone pisses on your leg, but for them to have the unmitigated gall to tell you it's raining...well...that's the point where I'm glad they're letting me buy "assault style" firearms.
Note, while I'm saying the Republican politicans are "so bad", I'm not trying to stand up for the Democrats. I think they're slightly less bad. But that's like saying a flaming stick in your eye is slightly better than an acid spewing stick in your eye.
Slashdot Mirror
Two wrongs don't make a right. Why is this such a hard concept for people to comprehend?
If a punishment IS just and deserved, then yes, they may. However, I maintain that an individual can rarely, if ever, determine if the accused is guilty of a crime without due process. First, the charges must be presented. In this instance, Maureen has given out private information concerning Pamela. First, the prosecution must posit the notion that the accused has broken the law in some manner, and they must be very specific about their assertion. Then, they must present evidence that supports their claim. A judge AND jury (in most situations) are required to witness this. The defense must then work to disprove these claims, presenting other evidence or casting the prosecutions evidence into doubt.
The separatation of the prosecution, the judge, and the jury into separate groups of people is extremely important. The jury must remain as impartial as is humanly possible until they are asked to render a verdict. The judge cannot favor one side over the other, regardless of personal feelings. How can any average person do all of these jobs? it's not likely.
To get back to the real part of your question (is justice justice, or is it what an authority happens to do): justice is justice. The reason I advocate the judical process so heavily is so that trained professionals (judges who do not favor one side over the other (regardless of his personal feelings) and also comprehend the meaning of the specifics of a law (an average person probably won't) along with a prosecution and potentially a defense) are there to do their jobs within the basic framework of our legal system. They ensure that our rights are preserved and all rules are adhered to.
If, in some odd instance, a person was accused of committing a crime and the people decided to hold his trial themselves, and they were lucky enough to have a retired judge who knew his duty, and lawyers who knew theirs, and a jury to work things out, and the trial was publically available and recorded for posterity AND the accused was allowed to appeal to a higher power, then I would not bat an eye if the US legal system was not used. But, essentially, we've just recreated the United States legal system for the sake of having one trial; why not just have the trial IN the legal system, if that is the case?
Because the common person can be so incensed by thoughts of vengeance that they don't respect the rights of the accused. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. Most people make up their mind in 15 seconds wehther someone is guilty or not. Letting the public go willy nilly punishing "criminals" (or people they just don't like) would be insanity. Lynch mobs are never a good thing. It is our adherence to due process of law in the pursuit of justice that makes us a civilized people. Otherwise we're just animals.
Well, it's either express my dismay of your inability to be circumspect in your actions or let it accelerate to a point that congress gets their pompous asses involved and passes some draconian law that does nothing but piss everyone off.
There's nothing wrong with society policing itself when it comes to morality. I can't MAKE you follow my morals, but I can talk about them. I suggest that, if you don't like it, you exercise your right to, say, not listen?
It also doubles as a 3 man kite on windy days, too!
I think it all boils down to intent. What was the intent of whitepages.com in divulging this information? A public service (or at least a private service funding public accessibility through advertising). What was the intent of the poster of the addresses? One can only assume to get angry geeks to call this woman and give her a piece of their mind. That's at best. At worst, he intended some deranged penguinian to break into her house and kill her. The former borders on illegal; if it was just one person, or a few people, that's one thing, but when potentially hundreds of phone calls a day start pouring in, that's aggregate harassment (I just made that term up (or at least I think I did), just an FYI). Whether or not this is illegal is not the point. It's wrong.
That isn't the point. He's coming forth with this information in an attempt to inform others of this contact information. He's participating in their potentially illegal acts. Even if a criminal case could not be brought against him, a civil case could. Regardless of whether this happened or not isn't the case. Leave the crazies to their own devices - let THEM do the work in tracking this woman down and killing her and turning her ass into a hat. The only thing you're doing by divulging this information is saying "hey, I really hope someone fucks with her". Don't deny it, don't sugar coat it. Since that's the case, you are very much so morally wrong, if not legally wrong.
No, but the phone company also isn't releasing one particular phone number and address at a time in which an enraged minority element may do them physical harm. I guarantee if a phone company DID do that, they'd be sued for mad cash. When you willingly volunteer specific information, knowing the consequences of giving up said information could result in the act of grave harm, you probably will be found partially responsible for the act in a civil court. Aside from that, however, it's still morally wrong. Even if it was completely okay, legally, to do this, that doesn't mean you should do it.
Yes. So? You know what else is public information? Watching someone in public walk into a private residence. Guess what? It's perfectly fucking legal. That doesn't mean it's unethical, jackass. What kind of morals did your parents teach you? If your actions, no matter whether they're legal or not, help contribute to the ending of someone's life, guess what? It's fucking wrong. It doesn't matter whether you can go to jail or not. That isn't the point.
But, since you didn't realize that already, I guess explaining it is just a waste of time. No wonder this country is so fucked up - no one bothers to be circumspect about their actions unless they run the chance of going to jail or being sued.
Dude, uncool. Maureen is a bitch. There's no question there. But you can't put her life in danger just because she put someone else's life in danger. That's for the justice system to do, not a vigilante with a grudge.
Lucas said flat out in some magazine-or-other that he was not doing the final 3, and since he, himself wasn't doing the final 3, he wasn't going to allow them to be made, either.
Things may have changed since then, but that's the last I heard of it.
I bought the entire album too, but itunes has a split second delay between each song playing, so it doesn't mesh together as nicely as I would like.
:(
It wouldn't be a problem at all if the boundaries were set properly
I've since bought the CD myself and ripped it myself with no problems. Maybe their ripping system is/was slightly flawed? I know not.
Wow. Imagine that. Someone did her job for her while she was too busy throwing a temper tantrum, and now she's jealous that she didn't get around to it first.
Idea: Next time, less talk, more work.
I noticed a bunch of problems with my emusic.com mp3s. The ends of songs were shifted over a second or so. The end of song 1 would be at the beginning of song 2, etc, etc.
I stopped subscribing to them.
I've heard quite a few people talk like that before. They're mostly hicks, though. I think they think they're clever.
I hate to ask this and lose whatever geek credibility I *may* have had, but what is this from? I have a feeling I'd love to check it out.
I think in the old days you were right. But now it's more like this:
- Democrats: For any problem the poor and middle class have, the solution is bigger government.
- Republicans: For any problem the ultra rich have, the solution is bigger government.
- Libertarians: For any problem, the solution is smaller government.
That looks about right for the year 2005.The only time I've ever gotten BSODs on Win2k or XP is when hardware has failed (RAM and the like). I would imagine that's where the RSOD would come into play. Thats when your computer is really dead. The BSOD would be for things like "important system files have become corrupted by ninjas" and the like. That's when it's just mostly dead, but you can repair it quickly and easily.
You're right. So Gore lied, and Bush was inept.
They're both damning to a politician. Or should be. But this is America, where any idiot can (and will!) be elected to the presidency.
How lucky we are [/sarcasm]
Oh, I should also note that when I say "admit you're all a bunch of ...", I wasn't referring to Republican voters or supporters. I was referring to the politicians.
That's what makes the Republican politicians so bad, though. They try to act like they're better or something. Just admit you're all a bunch of dirty, backstabbing, corporate whores and be done with it. It's bad enough when someone pisses on your leg, but for them to have the unmitigated gall to tell you it's raining...well...that's the point where I'm glad they're letting me buy "assault style" firearms.
Note, while I'm saying the Republican politicans are "so bad", I'm not trying to stand up for the Democrats. I think they're slightly less bad. But that's like saying a flaming stick in your eye is slightly better than an acid spewing stick in your eye.
I assumed he used the force to push the hot air away from him. That's why he was straining so mightily when he did it.
Or maybe he just had to poop and was trying to hold it. I think they're both potentially valid theories.
Yeah, 'cos bleach is a great aphrodisiac ;x
And just like all fun things, the cleanup is going to suck.