All the guy has to do is raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of ONE juror.
Even in the US, that's hardly sufficient to reliably be acquitted. If one juror's doubt is merely reasonable, the odds of him caving to the other jurors are quite high. It requires considerable certainty to persist when hounded by five or eleven other people.
The juror's decision must be unanimous, and if one juror sticks to his gun and will not vote guilty, and the other jurors stick to their guns and vote guilty -- this eventually results in a mistrial and the accused gets a new trial -- and really, if the case was strong enough to convince eleven out of twelve this time, it'll likely end with a guilty verdict next time.
And besides, the jurors probably don't want to be there. If only one juror disagrees with the rest, he knows that he's the one keeping everybody from going home, and may change his mind just for that matter.
You should do jury duty at least once. It's frustrating and boring at times, but it's also interesting and eye-opening.
You may call it rape, and maybe in some cases it is, but certainly not in all.
Depending on the relationship, you may actually find situations where sex (consensual, not rape) does settle disputes. It's hard to remain angry with somebody when you're both awash in that "fresh fucking" glow, after all.
I am outraged that Stephen Conroy knows about these child pornography websites, and apparently has not reported it to police
While I see what you did there, but just to channel Captain Obvious, it's quite likely that 1) these sites exist outside of Australia, where the laws actually permit them, or 2) don't actually exist. It's certainly not impossible that these sites don't exist, or don't contain child pornography at all (perhaps being somewhat close, but not quite there), etc.
It wouldn't be the first time a politician has made stuff up or stretched the truth or only told half the story to support their agenda.
But if that's the kind of deduplication you're talking about, does it really make sense to try to do it at the block level, as these boxes seem to be doing? Seems like you'd want to analyze files or databases in a more intelligent fashion
This isn't a new thing -- it's a tried and true backup strategy, and it's quite effective at making your backup tapes go further. It increases the complexity of the backup setup, but it's mostly transparent to the user beyond the saved space.
As for doing it at the file level rather than the block level, yes, that makes sense, but the block level does too. Think of a massive database file where only a few rows in a table changed, or a massive log file that only had some stuff appended to the end.
"Because they are usually paid the plaintiff in excess of the plaintiff's provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, where the defendant's conduct was egregiously insidious."... is simply downloading (and uploading, which is part of using bittorrent) a movie "egregiously insidious" ?
Either way, $2900 is not a court judgment -- it's a proposed settlement, to keep things from going to court. They could ask any figure they wanted -- but if it's too low, they don't get as much money as they could, and if it's too high then people will fight them and they likely don't want that either.
And copyright law does allow for large damages, so they'll ask for whatever the largest damage is that they can. I'm not sure it's called "punitive damages" in that case, however, though the idea is likely the same.
You seem to have missed some of the backstory here, harrytuttle777. The suggestion was to use this parabolic collector to pick up UVB-76's signal at 4625 kHz, so the wavelength is around 60 meters. (The title of the comments should provide some clue here.)
Also, your math is wrong -- the wavelength of a 4 GHz signal is about 0.075 meters -- you're off by three orders of magnitude. Or nearly six orders of magnitude, if we compare to UVB-76's frequency.
In any event, these *old fashioned* resonant antennas are very much in existence today -- while technology has progressed, the laws of physics have not, and resonant antennas are most certainly still used whenever practical.
Yes, a dish could be used to pick up UVB-76 -- however, it would have to be many times the size of the wavelength to be effective -- perhaps a half of a mile in diameter? And it would also have to be pointed in the right direction, which means it would be mostly pointing sideways, so this dish would be half a mile high (and wide). And at the focus, you'd still find your "old fashioned" resonant antenna, probably yagi of some sort, but perhaps a simple dipole.
As for the declining nature of the U.S. educational system, you may be a symptom of it, but I am not, especially with regards to science.
Ideally, the antenna will be resonant -- which means it needs to be almost exactly the right length, not too long and not too short.
You can coil up part of it, and you'll see that on CB antennas where there's a big coil, but it doesn't work as well.
It's not one of those cube-square things, it's more that the signal will "build up" in the antenna if it's resonant and it won't if it's not. It doesn't have to be 1/4 wave -- there's an infinite number of other resonant lengths -- but that's the shortest one.
Yes, the antenna is relevant. However, the smallest good antenna (1/4 wave) for 4625 kHz is about 16 meters long.
For a dish to work, the antenna at its center needs to be much smaller than the dish itself -- so if the dish was a mile wide, then this would work fine. But being 10 feet wide, no -- being smaller than the wavelength of the signal, the dish would be doing more harm than good.
Fortunately, HF signals don't need dishes to receive them -- appropriate antennas are often simply long wires (of the appropriate length) strung out as high above ground as practical. Yes, you can get fancier with highly directional multi-element antennas on rotators, but this isn't needed.
Juries are *supposed* to have no idea of what they're doing.
At least with regard to the law, they are supposed to only know the bare minimum needed to rule on the case in front of them. If they obviously know more, either prosecutor, the defender will try to dismiss them, and who does it will depend on the exact knowledge. Or the judge may dismiss them.
The judge goes to great pains to make sure the jury only knows what they're supposed to know -- i.e. what came across in the trial. Nothing else is permitted, and if the jurors learn something that's critical to the issue that they weren't supposed to know, the judge may order a mistrial and start over with a new jury.
The judge gives the jury the part of the law that he thinks the jury needs -- but often these jury instructions are incomplete and miss crucial passages or similar things that may totally change the meaning of the law. And while the lawyers may be able to educate the jury otherwise, the judge may order them to not do so before the trial, and if they do, it's contempt of court and the lawyer goes to jail.
Jury nullification is probably the most common example of something that juries are not supposed to know about...
Probably very little -- one guy, spending a few days to go through the entire town in a grid via Google.
Once you have a list of offenders, you send them a nasty letter. If you're not sure that something is a pool, you could fly a plane over or just ask to look, but you could stick to the nasty letters -- anybody who is innocent will certainly let you know.
It's a nice cash grab and costs almost nothing. Nasty, yes, and does nothing to improve safety or anything along those lines, but it did make some money.
Cities are subject to state law -- as are all other entities within a state.
But that's not what the amendment says. It says what the states can not do. Quit trying to interpret the Constitution!
And what about Washington D.C. -- it's not a state, not in a state. Or Puerto Rico?
Ultimately, the Constitution has grown to mean more than the sum of it's words. You may not approve of this, but many of the rights we collectively enjoy have come from this.
They're out of control. Plain and simple.
If you say so. I guess you could sue them -- good luck!
I guess you could overthrow the government -- that might work better. After all, a Supreme Court interpretation of the second amendment is what permits individuals to bear arms (or, more accurately, it prevents the government from totally taking the right away. Not that the government universally would, but certain states and cities certainly have tried.
So, a city can make or enforce a law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ?
No, it can't. And that prohibition didn't come from the 1st or 14th amendment, not exactly -- it came from an interpretation of the Constitution (including those amendments) that eventually was made by the Supreme Court itself.
Ultimately, the Constitution is subject to interpretation, as all laws are, and when the Supreme Court does this interpretation, it's interpretations basically become law just like they were part of the Constitution.
I don't know what version it is -- I haven't bought the book. And even with the current version, with all the amendments, it's clear that the writers of Constitution supported (or at least didn't condemn) slavery, at least for a while. (And yes, I do understand the reasons why. Had they condemned slavery in the Constitution, the US might have never existed.)
You do appear to be right about it not restricting voting to men (that would seem to have been done by the states themselves, my bad.)
And it seems that they use the same disclaimer for all their historical documents from the era, so it may make more sense with some of the other ones.
Ultimately, while I think the disclaimer is silly, I think all the hub-bub over it is just as silly.
The original version did no such thing. (That came later.) At the very least it acknowledged that slavery existed, which is somewhat like approving of it, though I wouldn't use language that's quite that strong.
Acknowledgment of slavery wasn't the only thing to offend us today. For example, it also only permitted men to vote.
What part of "shall make no law" is vague or open for interpretation?
For starters, how about the part that you omitted - "Congress shall make no law"...
Taken literally, that means that the states can make such laws, cities can make such laws, hell, even the President or Court or any other government agency could make such a law if they are permitted to make such laws.
90% of the flash content on the web does not need any more than Flash 5-6
[citation needed]
I think youtube alone will barf on anything lower than Flash 8, and they've probably got more than 10% of the "flash content" (well, content that is displayed through flash) on the web right there.
Actually, gas taxes typically only pay for the highway system, and only a fraction of that, like 50% or so overall?
City roads that aren't part of the highway system -- the ones cyclists use the most, are mostly paid for by sales and property taxes. In Texas (where I'm the most familiar with the situation), not a single penny of the gasoline tax pays for these roads!
Of course, this varies from place to place, but I'm talking about most states in the US. I'm not aware of any states that are different -- but I haven't checked them all either.
Slashdot Mirror
All the guy has to do is raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of ONE juror.
Even in the US, that's hardly sufficient to reliably be acquitted. If one juror's doubt is merely reasonable, the odds of him caving to the other jurors are quite high. It requires considerable certainty to persist when hounded by five or eleven other people.
The juror's decision must be unanimous, and if one juror sticks to his gun and will not vote guilty, and the other jurors stick to their guns and vote guilty -- this eventually results in a mistrial and the accused gets a new trial -- and really, if the case was strong enough to convince eleven out of twelve this time, it'll likely end with a guilty verdict next time.
And besides, the jurors probably don't want to be there. If only one juror disagrees with the rest, he knows that he's the one keeping everybody from going home, and may change his mind just for that matter.
You should do jury duty at least once. It's frustrating and boring at times, but it's also interesting and eye-opening.
settling disputes by fucking
We do that too sometimes, but we call it rape
You may call it rape, and maybe in some cases it is, but certainly not in all.
Depending on the relationship, you may actually find situations where sex (consensual, not rape) does settle disputes. It's hard to remain angry with somebody when you're both awash in that "fresh fucking" glow, after all.
I am outraged that Stephen Conroy knows about these child pornography websites, and apparently has not reported it to police
While I see what you did there, but just to channel Captain Obvious, it's quite likely that 1) these sites exist outside of Australia, where the laws actually permit them, or 2) don't actually exist. It's certainly not impossible that these sites don't exist, or don't contain child pornography at all (perhaps being somewhat close, but not quite there), etc.
It wouldn't be the first time a politician has made stuff up or stretched the truth or only told half the story to support their agenda.
But if that's the kind of deduplication you're talking about, does it really make sense to try to do it at the block level, as these boxes seem to be doing? Seems like you'd want to analyze files or databases in a more intelligent fashion
This isn't a new thing -- it's a tried and true backup strategy, and it's quite effective at making your backup tapes go further. It increases the complexity of the backup setup, but it's mostly transparent to the user beyond the saved space.
As for doing it at the file level rather than the block level, yes, that makes sense, but the block level does too. Think of a massive database file where only a few rows in a table changed, or a massive log file that only had some stuff appended to the end.
"Innocent until proven guilty." ... only in criminal cases, and even then it's only "*presumed* innocent until proven guilty".
Fair or not, the best possible advice for this situation is to get a lawyer.
From your referenced wikipedia page --
"Because they are usually paid the plaintiff in excess of the plaintiff's provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, where the defendant's conduct was egregiously insidious." ... is simply downloading (and uploading, which is part of using bittorrent) a movie "egregiously insidious" ?
Either way, $2900 is not a court judgment -- it's a proposed settlement, to keep things from going to court. They could ask any figure they wanted -- but if it's too low, they don't get as much money as they could, and if it's too high then people will fight them and they likely don't want that either.
And copyright law does allow for large damages, so they'll ask for whatever the largest damage is that they can. I'm not sure it's called "punitive damages" in that case, however, though the idea is likely the same.
You seem to have missed some of the backstory here, harrytuttle777. The suggestion was to use this parabolic collector to pick up UVB-76's signal at 4625 kHz, so the wavelength is around 60 meters. (The title of the comments should provide some clue here.)
Also, your math is wrong -- the wavelength of a 4 GHz signal is about 0.075 meters -- you're off by three orders of magnitude. Or nearly six orders of magnitude, if we compare to UVB-76's frequency.
In any event, these *old fashioned* resonant antennas are very much in existence today -- while technology has progressed, the laws of physics have not, and resonant antennas are most certainly still used whenever practical.
Yes, a dish could be used to pick up UVB-76 -- however, it would have to be many times the size of the wavelength to be effective -- perhaps a half of a mile in diameter? And it would also have to be pointed in the right direction, which means it would be mostly pointing sideways, so this dish would be half a mile high (and wide). And at the focus, you'd still find your "old fashioned" resonant antenna, probably yagi of some sort, but perhaps a simple dipole.
As for the declining nature of the U.S. educational system, you may be a symptom of it, but I am not, especially with regards to science.
Ideally, the antenna will be resonant -- which means it needs to be almost exactly the right length, not too long and not too short.
You can coil up part of it, and you'll see that on CB antennas where there's a big coil, but it doesn't work as well.
It's not one of those cube-square things, it's more that the signal will "build up" in the antenna if it's resonant and it won't if it's not. It doesn't have to be 1/4 wave -- there's an infinite number of other resonant lengths -- but that's the shortest one.
Yes, the antenna is relevant. However, the smallest good antenna (1/4 wave) for 4625 kHz is about 16 meters long.
For a dish to work, the antenna at its center needs to be much smaller than the dish itself -- so if the dish was a mile wide, then this would work fine. But being 10 feet wide, no -- being smaller than the wavelength of the signal, the dish would be doing more harm than good.
Fortunately, HF signals don't need dishes to receive them -- appropriate antennas are often simply long wires (of the appropriate length) strung out as high above ground as practical. Yes, you can get fancier with highly directional multi-element antennas on rotators, but this isn't needed.
> And juries have the power to nullify, but not necessarily the right.
Of course, in practice, the two are the same -- the defendant is acquitted, and the jurors don't have to explain their decision.
Call it a power, call it a right ... either way, they're the one with the gun, as long as they realize they have it.
Juries are *supposed* to have no idea of what they're doing.
At least with regard to the law, they are supposed to only know the bare minimum needed to rule on the case in front of them. If they obviously know more, either prosecutor, the defender will try to dismiss them, and who does it will depend on the exact knowledge. Or the judge may dismiss them.
The judge goes to great pains to make sure the jury only knows what they're supposed to know -- i.e. what came across in the trial. Nothing else is permitted, and if the jurors learn something that's critical to the issue that they weren't supposed to know, the judge may order a mistrial and start over with a new jury.
The judge gives the jury the part of the law that he thinks the jury needs -- but often these jury instructions are incomplete and miss crucial passages or similar things that may totally change the meaning of the law. And while the lawyers may be able to educate the jury otherwise, the judge may order them to not do so before the trial, and if they do, it's contempt of court and the lawyer goes to jail.
Jury nullification is probably the most common example of something that juries are not supposed to know about ...
I'd mod you up if I had any points right now ...
NDAs would be an obvious one. Non-compete or solicitation clauses would be two more.
OK, but if it's not in the contract, it's not there.
I don't recall any contracts that said I had to provide assistance with their networks after I was no longer employed.
but how much did it cost?
Probably very little -- one guy, spending a few days to go through the entire town in a grid via Google.
Once you have a list of offenders, you send them a nasty letter. If you're not sure that something is a pool, you could fly a plane over or just ask to look, but you could stick to the nasty letters -- anybody who is innocent will certainly let you know.
It's a nice cash grab and costs almost nothing. Nasty, yes, and does nothing to improve safety or anything along those lines, but it did make some money.
"He does his job AFTER he's fired?" HUH?!?!
When you're fired, your job is OVER.
... then you are no longer under any obligation to provide passwords or anything else related to your previous job whatsoever.
You can't have it both ways. Was his job OVER or not?
From the article -- "Tuitions now are twice what they were 25 years ago".
Hmm, I started at the University of Texas almost 25 years ago. Tuition has gone up by a factor of *10* since then.
(Seriously -- it was about $400 per semester back then, and now it's over $4000/semester now.)
Back then, I put myself through college. No loans. Not sure that kids could do that now ...
Does that mean /usr/bin/sox and xmms would be the new drug paraphernalia?
Cities are subject to state law -- as are all other entities within a state.
But that's not what the amendment says. It says what the states can not do. Quit trying to interpret the Constitution!
And what about Washington D.C. -- it's not a state, not in a state. Or Puerto Rico?
Ultimately, the Constitution has grown to mean more than the sum of it's words. You may not approve of this, but many of the rights we collectively enjoy have come from this.
They're out of control. Plain and simple.
If you say so. I guess you could sue them -- good luck!
I guess you could overthrow the government -- that might work better. After all, a Supreme Court interpretation of the second amendment is what permits individuals to bear arms (or, more accurately, it prevents the government from totally taking the right away. Not that the government universally would, but certain states and cities certainly have tried.
So, a city can make or enforce a law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ?
No, it can't. And that prohibition didn't come from the 1st or 14th amendment, not exactly -- it came from an interpretation of the Constitution (including those amendments) that eventually was made by the Supreme Court itself.
Ultimately, the Constitution is subject to interpretation, as all laws are, and when the Supreme Court does this interpretation, it's interpretations basically become law just like they were part of the Constitution.
I don't know what version it is -- I haven't bought the book. And even with the current version, with all the amendments, it's clear that the writers of Constitution supported (or at least didn't condemn) slavery, at least for a while. (And yes, I do understand the reasons why. Had they condemned slavery in the Constitution, the US might have never existed.)
You do appear to be right about it not restricting voting to men (that would seem to have been done by the states themselves, my bad.)
And it seems that they use the same disclaimer for all their historical documents from the era, so it may make more sense with some of the other ones.
Ultimately, while I think the disclaimer is silly, I think all the hub-bub over it is just as silly.
(Yes, it was funny.)
The constitution explicitly forbids slavery.
The original version did no such thing. (That came later.) At the very least it acknowledged that slavery existed, which is somewhat like approving of it, though I wouldn't use language that's quite that strong.
Acknowledgment of slavery wasn't the only thing to offend us today. For example, it also only permitted men to vote.
What part of "shall make no law" is vague or open for interpretation?
For starters, how about the part that you omitted - "Congress shall make no law" ...
Taken literally, that means that the states can make such laws, cities can make such laws, hell, even the President or Court or any other government agency could make such a law if they are permitted to make such laws.
90% of the flash content on the web does not need any more than Flash 5-6
[citation needed]
I think youtube alone will barf on anything lower than Flash 8, and they've probably got more than 10% of the "flash content" (well, content that is displayed through flash) on the web right there.
Actually, gas taxes typically only pay for the highway system, and only a fraction of that, like 50% or so overall?
City roads that aren't part of the highway system -- the ones cyclists use the most, are mostly paid for by sales and property taxes. In Texas (where I'm the most familiar with the situation), not a single penny of the gasoline tax pays for these roads!
Of course, this varies from place to place, but I'm talking about most states in the US. I'm not aware of any states that are different -- but I haven't checked them all either.