You haven't pointed out a case where anyone was presumed innocent. In both instances a reasonable person looking at all the facts AT THE TIME concluded the person did it. The problem is not people being presumed guilty, the problem is we didn't have all the facts.
This type of thing happens a LOT. We shouldn't be presuming guilt. We should be presuming innocence. Just because you have a knife in your hand, or child images on your PC, or $2000 suddenly appeared in your Bing Cash account, doe snot mean you committed the crime. You could have been framed (malware) or mistakenly identified (your neighbor downloaded the stolen songs, not you) or whatever.
Yes you could have been framed. But being framed isn't a reasonable thing to believe unless you have something to lead me to believe you were. What you propose would not allow us to convict anyone.
There's a difference between a case throwing flimsy and circumstatial evidence at you and "wow, it really looks like he did it." The difference is the expectation that a jury can have "no reasonable doubt." Its not reasonable to assume everyone was framed, or that the far out story explaining the knife in your hand is true, etc.
Your explaination may be theoritically possible... but that's not enough. It has to be a reasonable explaination which counters the prosecution.
The onus should be on the prosecutor, not to just provide evidence, but also proof that YOU committed the actual act. If he can't do the latter then you should presumed innocent and freed.
Yes, and in all the cases you're talking about, the facts seem to indicate that the accused did it. If kiddy porn is on your computer, I'm inclined to believe one of the users put it there. That's not presuming guilty, its making a reasonable judgement based on the facts I have.
Isn't that *exactly* what I said? Income tax (amoungst others) is largely based on trust. If you misreport your income, you may well get away with it and it would be very difficult for the authorities to prove an offence, but the penalty if you do get caught is pretty high, so most people aren't going to take the risk.
No, this isn't at ALL what you said. You pointed to a few edge cases where trust may be the only thing stopping you... but thats NOT THE NORM. In almost every other case, the IRS most certainly does NOT trust anyone. Please feel free to read the history of the income tax if you don't believe me.
This is only true if you deal with businesses. If you contract to private individuals and they pay ion cash then this information will not be reported to the inland revenue by your customers and there is no way for the income to be proved if you misreported it.
You sadly underestimate the amount of "under the table" transactions which go on every year. This exact thing happens all the time. The fact that it can happen though doesn't mean the whole paying taxes thing is built on trust; it means they can't catch you because they don't have constant monitoring. But that doesn't mean they TRUST you to pay your taxes, it means its impractical to catch everyone breaking the law.
Yes, the same way as they can also see antennas mounted on people's roofs. But the law says that you're not allowed to receive broadcast TV without a licence, not that you can't have an antenna. I imagine the vast majority of people without a TV also have an antenna or satellite dish since no one is going to bother removing the antenna from their property just because they don't currently have a TV. They would not be able to prosecute or get a search warrant based on this.
My dad has a large antenna installed within the attic of his house, its not visible at all. Besides, what's your point here? The fact that they have vans at all means they don't trust people to pay. I don't know UK law, but if the US had a TV license tax I'm sure a judge would issue a warrant based on the fact that there's a dish or antenna on the roof.
You don't get it do you. If I didn't pay my licence fee, there is no way they could make me - they cannot prove whether or not I watch broadcast TV, thus the licence fee operates on trust.
WTF? They have a fleet of vans to catch people that might be doing just what you're suggesting, and you say its based on trust? Enforcement and intimidation is not a system based on trust, that's the exact opposite of trust.
Except the majority of people do pay their TV licence, and don't lie on their tax return, even though in both cases the chances are that they would get away with it, which seems to disprove your point... Most people want to follow the law, which explains why most people pay for music instead of downloading it all, and don't do various other criminal acts for which they almost certainly won't get caught.
Most people pay because they expect to be caught. I don't claim to know about people lying on their taxes in the UK, but in the US being paid under the table is very common. Most people don't want to pay taxes, otherwise the selling point of tax prepares would not be getting the largest refund legally possible. Many may very well lie (do you know anyone that reports use taxes? I don't.), and those that don't aren't doing so out of sense of duty or "wanting" to follow the law, they do so because of fear of consequences. If you're using fear to compel someone to act, you can't possibly say you trust them.
I don't get the powerpoint bashing... most classes I've been in used the overhead projector, seems like PP is just a replacement for that (at least its more visually appealing than boring black text on white).
I've found myself using it a bit more lately. Not nearly as much as google, but for those times googling isn't working, bing has proven helpful. I'd say its better than yahoo at this point.
Oh, and bing maps work on a server restricted IE setup, whereas google maps no longer does.
If he were presumed guilty, he'd have already been serving time, pending the outcome of a trial to prove his innocence.
I hate to tell you, but having kiddie porn ON YOUR COMPUTER is fairly good evidence you've done something wrong. You have the bloody knife in your hand standing over the body.. yes you'd better be able to show me that you AREN'T the murder, and saying "well someone else did it" without showing me its reasonble isn't going to cut it.
You sure? I've seen a paypal enabled site where each "add to cart" button is in its own form, with various input type="hidden" Guess what one of the fields was? That's right, it was the UnitPrice!
Bzzt, try again. I have no employer - I'm self employed. Also, anyone who gets extra income from other sources (e.g. letting out a room in their house, etc.) has to report that income on a tax return.
You don't get it do you? You may very well be able to get away not reporting. Of course, I have my own business too, and my largest client helpfully sends a form to the IRS reporting the money they've paid me. Presumably because they want to keep out of trouble by having the IRS look at the expensive they've paid to me. An exception does not invalidate the norm, BTW.
TV detectors only work in specific cases. They detect the IF oscillator radiating through the antenna - this means that they wouldn't be able to detect my TV because I have no antenna (I use satellite). There is also a strong suggestion that the vast majority of TV detector vans actually don't have any TV detection kit in them and are just driven around to scare people (that said, I have *never* seen a TV detection van, so they clearly aren't that common).
Presumably the van can see a satellite mounted on your property.. I don't live in Britian, but the fact that you never saw one doesn't mean they don't exist (they clearly do, as there was a BBC article descibing how they work), and the fact that they DON'T trust you enough to have some vans proves my point.
If they didn't even have the token force they do, the assumption they're making is that no one would pay the license fee. Which again is my point.. without a serious attempt at enforcement, almost nobody would pay a tax they don't have to.
If everyone else can behave themselves but you, you are definitely the sort of customer that costs more in lost business than you bring in. And the regular customers shouldn't have to be penalized or inconvenienced due to your lack of self control or restraint.
If I'm the only one doing it, it shouldn't present that big of a deal in the larger picture. As far as other customers go, lets get real. They're customers. The business is trying a gimic to make more money from lazy people who would rather pay $5 for a cup of coffee they could have made themselves for $0.50. The business should not be offering something they can fulfill, the same way comcast should not be offering "unlimited" internet and then crying when people use the full pipe 24/7. Either its unlimited or its not. But I don't feel sorry for anyone that believed the lies of a company trying to seperate them from thier money.
I've seen it where one customer, just one, has ruined things for everyone else just because they had to take "full advantage" of something for themselves. Something that had been going on for years and that was used by many other customers. Of course, people like that just move on to the next good thing like the locust they are while the regular customers suffer.
Regular customers "suffer?" Seriously, they are in pain now? Out of a job? Something else? Or is it someone called the business' bluff, and then took away from their customers what they were never really offering to begin with?
There's a very simple explaination for this, which is why the stat is indeed accurate; we have a larger population than we did, and its continuing to grow.
With that in mind, its totally logical that the actual number of deaths go up (because there are more people than there used to be) while the RATES are going down. Its the rates that matter, not the actual number.
If a disease kills 2% of a population of population of ten, thats a big deal. No so much when its 2% of 300 million.
So really then, how is this different than traditional closed source software? Developers not listening to their users, wanting to wall themselves off from the morons running the very code they created.
Which is interesting, because MS developers have been actively more engaging in the MS platform community... and I've yet to find a single post from an MS employee that could be deemed "assholish."
Well, the theory is that its more efficent to heat the whole dome than individual houses. Also, I doubt snow would build up on top of a dome whose surface is around 70F.
There already are. What makes you think there aren't?
Or stop building sprawl.
And the sprawl that already exists? Face it, its not going anywhere, so you'll have to deal with this issue. Trains aren't really going to work, unless perhaps they make them incrediblly fast.
Anyway, actual trains are far more efficient than this could ever be.
Since it's not even deployed, perhaps you should wait before passing judgement.
Well, technically doesn't all that matter how they incorporated? Colchester VT has more people living in it than Burlington, but its still chartered as a town. So I think that the nitpick depends heavily on how Winooski was legally formed.
If exercise doesn't burn that many calories, you're doing it wrong. I can burn 800 calories in 30 minutes of lifting. 1000 in 45 minutes of interval cardio.
The problem comes when each meal you eat is also 1000+ calories, and then you're snacking all day, when you need less than 2000 a day just to sit around. So if you need 2000 + burning 500 but you're taking in 5000, of course you're not going to lose weight.
But who said you can eat whatever you want and exercise it off? Nobody. Its always exercise + diet changes required to lose weight.
Sorry, a deverloper forum ISN"T the right place to discuss a bug? Oh, and nothing you said excusses asshole behavior.. either you want to help people and have them use your software, or you don't. Many in OSS seem to want the latter so they can be left alone in their moms basement.
So one of the developers in the project tracked and found the issue online for free and you think their support sucks?
Ya, after being told bascially to piss off. And I get free support from MS too. The POINT is that OSS is supposed to offer a better alternative, but it doesn't. Who cares about "layers of bureaucracy" when you have arrogant assholes who can't EVEN BE BOTHERED TO READ THE BUG REPORT.
I once found a bug in DOSBox which none of the developers cared about. l debugged and read the code myself, made a patch that "fixed" the bug (although my fix made bugs elsewhere), posted it and screenshots showing the game working when it didn't even boot before. This was enough for a couple of people to start talking about it. Next release of DOSBox came guess what, the bug was fixed. Properly.
With closed-source software you are truly stuck because whoever developed the software must necessarily fix it. You cannot fix it yourself even if you could and wanted to. How is that better?
Because show stopping bugs like the one you describe in DOSBOX are very rare. Its pretty much why I ditched Linux. I got tired of things half-assedly working. And no, I'm not going to spend all my free time debugging other peoples shit when I have my own things I'd like to do. And closed source software lets me do that without getting in my way.
"organic" in this context is short for "organical food," which is an FDA defined term for organically grown food which must meet a strict set of rules and must be certified before "Organic" and be used in the marketing. Natural is whatever the manufactorer wants it to mean though.
Plastic isn't "organic" in this context because its not food at all..
When people say "organic" in this context they mean "organic food," which actually has a very strict FDA defined meaning, and you must get certified to call yourself organic. Its more expensive because they can't use the traditional pesticides, which may or may not cause problems. Personally I'd rather opt out and not take the risk, but of course you're free do what you like as well.
Thats so if someone places non-organic fruit on top of the organic fruit there won't be any contamination. It has to stay organic at least until its in your cart.
It's actually pretty impressive how much cashiers at grocery stores have to memorize (they get paid better than you'd expect, too.)
Speaking as an excashier, no we didn't, for either memorizing anything nor being paid well (federal minimum wage is "paid better than you'd expect?").
Typically what happens is we remember the code of the most common one and punch that in, regardless. Most people aren't watching or even know what they picked other than the color and won't complain unless what you rang up is more expensive than what they are buying.
Er, the data goes back to 1985. And my statement was accident rates have been falling for years, which is backed up by the data, and that's pretty much everything, death injuries etc.
You don't get to throw out assertions that we need more laws to battle a problem before you've even shown there to be aproblem. That's the first step, and the burden really is on you to PROVE that we need a new law... not for you to demand it and others to refute your baseless claims.
I didn't cite any proof because it can be easily found, as another poster showed you. So please, get a fucking grip, and before you go spouting out that we need x y or z, do your own goddamn research, instead of the kneejerk crap you're doing now.
The whole argument is about safety, and even without these laws accident rates have been dropping. There fore there's no problem that needs to be addressed, and it doesn't really matter why rates have been falling. YOU need to show something is getting worse and THATS why a law is needed.
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't pointed out a case where anyone was presumed innocent. In both instances a reasonable person looking at all the facts AT THE TIME concluded the person did it. The problem is not people being presumed guilty, the problem is we didn't have all the facts.
This type of thing happens a LOT. We shouldn't be presuming guilt. We should be presuming innocence. Just because you have a knife in your hand, or child images on your PC, or $2000 suddenly appeared in your Bing Cash account, doe snot mean you committed the crime. You could have been framed (malware) or mistakenly identified (your neighbor downloaded the stolen songs, not you) or whatever.
Yes you could have been framed. But being framed isn't a reasonable thing to believe unless you have something to lead me to believe you were. What you propose would not allow us to convict anyone.
There's a difference between a case throwing flimsy and circumstatial evidence at you and "wow, it really looks like he did it." The difference is the expectation that a jury can have "no reasonable doubt." Its not reasonable to assume everyone was framed, or that the far out story explaining the knife in your hand is true, etc.
Your explaination may be theoritically possible... but that's not enough. It has to be a reasonable explaination which counters the prosecution.
The onus should be on the prosecutor, not to just provide evidence, but also proof that YOU committed the actual act. If he can't do the latter then you should presumed innocent and freed.
Yes, and in all the cases you're talking about, the facts seem to indicate that the accused did it. If kiddy porn is on your computer, I'm inclined to believe one of the users put it there. That's not presuming guilty, its making a reasonable judgement based on the facts I have.
Isn't that *exactly* what I said? Income tax (amoungst others) is largely based on trust. If you misreport your income, you may well get away with it and it would be very difficult for the authorities to prove an offence, but the penalty if you do get caught is pretty high, so most people aren't going to take the risk.
No, this isn't at ALL what you said. You pointed to a few edge cases where trust may be the only thing stopping you... but thats NOT THE NORM. In almost every other case, the IRS most certainly does NOT trust anyone. Please feel free to read the history of the income tax if you don't believe me.
This is only true if you deal with businesses. If you contract to private individuals and they pay ion cash then this information will not be reported to the inland revenue by your customers and there is no way for the income to be proved if you misreported it.
You sadly underestimate the amount of "under the table" transactions which go on every year. This exact thing happens all the time. The fact that it can happen though doesn't mean the whole paying taxes thing is built on trust; it means they can't catch you because they don't have constant monitoring. But that doesn't mean they TRUST you to pay your taxes, it means its impractical to catch everyone breaking the law.
Yes, the same way as they can also see antennas mounted on people's roofs. But the law says that you're not allowed to receive broadcast TV without a licence, not that you can't have an antenna. I imagine the vast majority of people without a TV also have an antenna or satellite dish since no one is going to bother removing the antenna from their property just because they don't currently have a TV. They would not be able to prosecute or get a search warrant based on this.
My dad has a large antenna installed within the attic of his house, its not visible at all. Besides, what's your point here? The fact that they have vans at all means they don't trust people to pay. I don't know UK law, but if the US had a TV license tax I'm sure a judge would issue a warrant based on the fact that there's a dish or antenna on the roof.
You don't get it do you. If I didn't pay my licence fee, there is no way they could make me - they cannot prove whether or not I watch broadcast TV, thus the licence fee operates on trust.
WTF? They have a fleet of vans to catch people that might be doing just what you're suggesting, and you say its based on trust? Enforcement and intimidation is not a system based on trust, that's the exact opposite of trust.
Except the majority of people do pay their TV licence, and don't lie on their tax return, even though in both cases the chances are that they would get away with it, which seems to disprove your point... Most people want to follow the law, which explains why most people pay for music instead of downloading it all, and don't do various other criminal acts for which they almost certainly won't get caught.
Most people pay because they expect to be caught. I don't claim to know about people lying on their taxes in the UK, but in the US being paid under the table is very common. Most people don't want to pay taxes, otherwise the selling point of tax prepares would not be getting the largest refund legally possible. Many may very well lie (do you know anyone that reports use taxes? I don't.), and those that don't aren't doing so out of sense of duty or "wanting" to follow the law, they do so because of fear of consequences. If you're using fear to compel someone to act, you can't possibly say you trust them.
As opposed to mountains of overheads?
I don't get the powerpoint bashing... most classes I've been in used the overhead projector, seems like PP is just a replacement for that (at least its more visually appealing than boring black text on white).
I've found myself using it a bit more lately. Not nearly as much as google, but for those times googling isn't working, bing has proven helpful. I'd say its better than yahoo at this point.
Oh, and bing maps work on a server restricted IE setup, whereas google maps no longer does.
If he were presumed guilty, he'd have already been serving time, pending the outcome of a trial to prove his innocence.
I hate to tell you, but having kiddie porn ON YOUR COMPUTER is fairly good evidence you've done something wrong. You have the bloody knife in your hand standing over the body.. yes you'd better be able to show me that you AREN'T the murder, and saying "well someone else did it" without showing me its reasonble isn't going to cut it.
You sure? I've seen a paypal enabled site where each "add to cart" button is in its own form, with various input type="hidden" Guess what one of the fields was? That's right, it was the UnitPrice!
Bzzt, try again. I have no employer - I'm self employed. Also, anyone who gets extra income from other sources (e.g. letting out a room in their house, etc.) has to report that income on a tax return.
You don't get it do you? You may very well be able to get away not reporting. Of course, I have my own business too, and my largest client helpfully sends a form to the IRS reporting the money they've paid me. Presumably because they want to keep out of trouble by having the IRS look at the expensive they've paid to me. An exception does not invalidate the norm, BTW.
TV detectors only work in specific cases. They detect the IF oscillator radiating through the antenna - this means that they wouldn't be able to detect my TV because I have no antenna (I use satellite). There is also a strong suggestion that the vast majority of TV detector vans actually don't have any TV detection kit in them and are just driven around to scare people (that said, I have *never* seen a TV detection van, so they clearly aren't that common).
Presumably the van can see a satellite mounted on your property.. I don't live in Britian, but the fact that you never saw one doesn't mean they don't exist (they clearly do, as there was a BBC article descibing how they work), and the fact that they DON'T trust you enough to have some vans proves my point.
If they didn't even have the token force they do, the assumption they're making is that no one would pay the license fee. Which again is my point.. without a serious attempt at enforcement, almost nobody would pay a tax they don't have to.
If everyone else can behave themselves but you, you are definitely the sort of customer that costs more in lost business than you bring in. And the regular customers shouldn't have to be penalized or inconvenienced due to your lack of self control or restraint.
If I'm the only one doing it, it shouldn't present that big of a deal in the larger picture. As far as other customers go, lets get real. They're customers. The business is trying a gimic to make more money from lazy people who would rather pay $5 for a cup of coffee they could have made themselves for $0.50. The business should not be offering something they can fulfill, the same way comcast should not be offering "unlimited" internet and then crying when people use the full pipe 24/7. Either its unlimited or its not. But I don't feel sorry for anyone that believed the lies of a company trying to seperate them from thier money.
I've seen it where one customer, just one, has ruined things for everyone else just because they had to take "full advantage" of something for themselves. Something that had been going on for years and that was used by many other customers. Of course, people like that just move on to the next good thing like the locust they are while the regular customers suffer.
Regular customers "suffer?" Seriously, they are in pain now? Out of a job? Something else? Or is it someone called the business' bluff, and then took away from their customers what they were never really offering to begin with?
There's a very simple explaination for this, which is why the stat is indeed accurate; we have a larger population than we did, and its continuing to grow.
With that in mind, its totally logical that the actual number of deaths go up (because there are more people than there used to be) while the RATES are going down. Its the rates that matter, not the actual number.
If a disease kills 2% of a population of population of ten, thats a big deal. No so much when its 2% of 300 million.
So really then, how is this different than traditional closed source software? Developers not listening to their users, wanting to wall themselves off from the morons running the very code they created.
Which is interesting, because MS developers have been actively more engaging in the MS platform community... and I've yet to find a single post from an MS employee that could be deemed "assholish."
Ahh yes, truely narcissistic attitude. Nuke those that dare build somewhere I disgree with.
Well, the theory is that its more efficent to heat the whole dome than individual houses. Also, I doubt snow would build up on top of a dome whose surface is around 70F.
Maybe there should be car-carrying trains.
There already are. What makes you think there aren't?
Or stop building sprawl.
And the sprawl that already exists? Face it, its not going anywhere, so you'll have to deal with this issue. Trains aren't really going to work, unless perhaps they make them incrediblly fast.
Anyway, actual trains are far more efficient than this could ever be.
Since it's not even deployed, perhaps you should wait before passing judgement.
Well, technically doesn't all that matter how they incorporated? Colchester VT has more people living in it than Burlington, but its still chartered as a town. So I think that the nitpick depends heavily on how Winooski was legally formed.
You can work out at home very cheaply, with no equipment at all. That's not really an excuse not to have an exercise program.
You should only be gaining weight from exercise if you're doing enough to build muscle but not enough to get into fat burning.
Weight training followed by interval cardio is the best way to burn calories (and thus fat), provided you eat right.
If exercise doesn't burn that many calories, you're doing it wrong. I can burn 800 calories in 30 minutes of lifting. 1000 in 45 minutes of interval cardio.
The problem comes when each meal you eat is also 1000+ calories, and then you're snacking all day, when you need less than 2000 a day just to sit around. So if you need 2000 + burning 500 but you're taking in 5000, of course you're not going to lose weight.
But who said you can eat whatever you want and exercise it off? Nobody. Its always exercise + diet changes required to lose weight.
Sorry, a deverloper forum ISN"T the right place to discuss a bug? Oh, and nothing you said excusses asshole behavior.. either you want to help people and have them use your software, or you don't. Many in OSS seem to want the latter so they can be left alone in their moms basement.
So one of the developers in the project tracked and found the issue online for free and you think their support sucks?
Ya, after being told bascially to piss off. And I get free support from MS too. The POINT is that OSS is supposed to offer a better alternative, but it doesn't. Who cares about "layers of bureaucracy" when you have arrogant assholes who can't EVEN BE BOTHERED TO READ THE BUG REPORT.
I once found a bug in DOSBox which none of the developers cared about. l debugged and read the code myself, made a patch that "fixed" the bug (although my fix made bugs elsewhere), posted it and screenshots showing the game working when it didn't even boot before. This was enough for a couple of people to start talking about it. Next release of DOSBox came guess what, the bug was fixed. Properly.
With closed-source software you are truly stuck because whoever developed the software must necessarily fix it. You cannot fix it yourself even if you could and wanted to. How is that better?
Because show stopping bugs like the one you describe in DOSBOX are very rare. Its pretty much why I ditched Linux. I got tired of things half-assedly working. And no, I'm not going to spend all my free time debugging other peoples shit when I have my own things I'd like to do. And closed source software lets me do that without getting in my way.
"organic" in this context is short for "organical food," which is an FDA defined term for organically grown food which must meet a strict set of rules and must be certified before "Organic" and be used in the marketing. Natural is whatever the manufactorer wants it to mean though.
Plastic isn't "organic" in this context because its not food at all..
In the US, produce codes are standardized. 4011 is always banana. 94011 is an organic banana.
*sigh* There is no significant fat content to an apple. The sugar in an apple is fuctose, which doesn't spike insulin levels (GI = ~19).
When people say "organic" in this context they mean "organic food," which actually has a very strict FDA defined meaning, and you must get certified to call yourself organic. Its more expensive because they can't use the traditional pesticides, which may or may not cause problems. Personally I'd rather opt out and not take the risk, but of course you're free do what you like as well.
Thats so if someone places non-organic fruit on top of the organic fruit there won't be any contamination. It has to stay organic at least until its in your cart.
It's actually pretty impressive how much cashiers at grocery stores have to memorize (they get paid better than you'd expect, too.)
Speaking as an excashier, no we didn't, for either memorizing anything nor being paid well (federal minimum wage is "paid better than you'd expect?").
Typically what happens is we remember the code of the most common one and punch that in, regardless. Most people aren't watching or even know what they picked other than the color and won't complain unless what you rang up is more expensive than what they are buying.
Er, the data goes back to 1985. And my statement was accident rates have been falling for years, which is backed up by the data, and that's pretty much everything, death injuries etc.
You don't get to throw out assertions that we need more laws to battle a problem before you've even shown there to be aproblem. That's the first step, and the burden really is on you to PROVE that we need a new law... not for you to demand it and others to refute your baseless claims.
I didn't cite any proof because it can be easily found, as another poster showed you. So please, get a fucking grip, and before you go spouting out that we need x y or z, do your own goddamn research, instead of the kneejerk crap you're doing now.
The whole argument is about safety, and even without these laws accident rates have been dropping. There fore there's no problem that needs to be addressed, and it doesn't really matter why rates have been falling. YOU need to show something is getting worse and THATS why a law is needed.