How will the police be able to prove that he actually drove that fast? First, he may have been bragging about his speed. Second, it may be possible that he didn't write that forum post at all. And third, while he's an idiot for confessing, in my country a confession without factual evidence of an actual crime or offense cannot be prosecuted.
1. He wasn't charged with speeding. He was charged with "careless driving", for which they don't need to prove you were speeding.
2. He admitted in his post as to the when and where, and mentioned that there was a person writing something down as he passed, probably a license plate number, but "he was too fast for them".
Given this, the police probably went to that neighborhood and asked around (if no complaint had already been filed, that is). That would give them evidence that a crime was committed. If they got a partial license plate number, a description of the car, and a description of the driver from witnesses, then they probably had enough to charge and likely convict him.
He was *not* convicted based on his forum post. He was *identified* as a result of the forum post, which later lead to police arresting him. He then pled guilty to the charge.
I know some people will say that copyright shouldn't exist at all. But ignoring that argument for a moment, I'm curious why copyright isn't part of state law and not federal. What is the reasoning?
Not a legal scholar, but I believe that since the power to establish copyright is explicitly granted to the federal government in the US Constitution, it's presumably forbidden for the states to have their own copyright laws.
What this really concerns is big business shutting out small scale farmers. Only four farms are being allowed essentially shutting out small growers. That didn't take long. It's sad because small family farms could actually make a profit growing pot but there's simply too much profit involved to allow small farmers to be allowed to play. I wonder how much lobbying went into this decision?
What makes you think there will be all that much profit? The plants are *not* hard to cultivate, and it sounds like distribution will be strictly local.
Don't assume that the price of something on the black market has any bearing on what it will sell for if legalized - most of the current price of pot is the typically huge black-market markup.
Of course, it will undoubtedly be taxed at a ludicrous rate, but it won't be the growers raking in the dough from that.
Stealing a blade of grass off my lawn makes you a thief.
Got it?
Now, get off it.
And if someone steals a blade of grass from your lawn, they should be required to recompense you for the value of that blade of grass. Which, due to abundance, is basically nothing.
I wish I could find the link. The study was commissioned by a book publisher trying to find our how much piracy hurt book sales. Generally when a book is published, sales spike a few days later then drop, and it's a couple of weeks before it's scanned and on the internet. What they found was that when it hit the internet, rather than a drop there was a second spike.
Perhaps you were thinking of Eric Flint's posts on the Baen Free Library. In particular, read his Prime Palaver #6, where he shows the actual effect that releasing works for free had upon his sales (Hint - he ain't unhappy with the results).
... an amount the people who wrote the law might have expected
Not really. The lawmakers established a fine of $250,000 per song. They'd probably be disappointed to see it reduced to just over $2000
I doubt it. When the law was written, it was written to cover commercial infringement, as at that time there was no technology that would have allowed for the wide-spread non-commercial infringement that is commonplace today.
The law really needs to be rewritten to differentiate between the two, with reasonable (if any) penalties for P2P type infringement. However, given the current influence of the media corporations with government, maybe we should leave well enough alone...
That's why I think the alternative fuel of choice will (and should) be Hydrogen. People (consumers and stations and providers) already know how to deal with liquids, it's just an adaptation of existing infrastructure.
Hydrogen is only liquid at temperatures below -250C - I doubt there are many consumers and stations and providers that have any experience with cryo temperature liquids...
Wait a second. Doesn't the US have its own rocky deserts that are far, far safer and politically stabler from which to extract energy? Isn't the US the biggest economy in the world, *by far*? We should be the ones announcing these kinds of initiatives. This is the kind of infrastructure nation-building that would leap us to the forefront of alternative energy research, development, and exports, ensuring the growth of our economy for decades to come.
Yup - we have tons of places where solar power could be deployed (Mojave Desert in California, large parts of Nevada, Utah, and Texas, and practically the entire states of Arizona and New Mexico). And for the most part, these prime locations are either already part of the national power grid, or close enough to it to easily connect.
However, we have politically powerful energy companies, which have a vested interest in seeing that we continue to burn off precious resources (oil and coal) for as long as possible. We also have many NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard") groups that are theoretically in favor of renewable energy, so long as it doesn't create "eyesores" that affect their property values.
I think when future historians write about the US, I don't think the words "wisdom" or "foresight" will appear, unless prefixed with the phrase "lack of".:(
While true in theory, I'm not sure that'd work in practice. Virtually every law puts SOME financial burden on the states, for enforcement at the local level or what-have-you. Forbidding "unfunded mandates" would dramatically increase bookkeeping as the federal government would have to try to track every cost of every law and allocate money to the states accordingly.
I'm sorry, but I don't see ANY situation where Congress should be able to pass any law that does not include a mechanism for paying for enforcement. There is even a "rule" in the House of Representatives to this effect. For most federal laws, it is federal agencies that are given responsibility for enforcement (and who'll throw a fit if they catch the states even trying to enforce "their" laws).
For a good example of how these unfunded mandates happen, read up on the Real ID controversy. Basically, the federal government handed down rules on what will constitute a valid ID for federal purposes, but then left it to the states to pay the (large) costs of actually implementing such a system. If the federal government believes that such a standardized ID is required, then why can't it foot the bill for it?
(To answer my own question - because Congress is fully aware that any attempt to actually implement a National ID system would encounter too many objections. It's not a matter of costs, in this case, but political viability).
Having actual people representing the states' interests would probably be a more effective mechanism than a constitutional amendment. That being said, I generally don't support adding layers of interference between the people and the government, so I prefer the current system.
I'd prefer not having to tweak the Constitution to get elected officials to behave responsibly. My post was mainly a statement that the states DO have the power to solve such problems, if they ever get off their butts and use it. Who know, even a credible *threat* of such an amendment being passed might serve as a "wake up call" for our Congresscritters to start doing their jobs properly.
I would still like to get rid of the 17th Amendment. Having the state governments representatives in Congress acts as another check against tyranny. One of the big problems states have right now is unfunded mandates coming down from on high. That might be prevented or at least curtailed.
Which the states can fix any time they want. How? By passing an amendment prohibiting such unfunded mandates. While to date every amendment to the Constitution has originated from Congress, the Constitution allows such amendments to be enacted with no involvement of the federal government whatsoever.
The problem isn't that states don't have the power to limit the federal government. The problem is that they have consistently refused to assert their power to do so.
Well, until such a research is done, you're talking out of your ass. The random sampling could result in 0.0005% arrest rate, for all you know. 0.5% means one in 200 was arrested -- do you really think that random sampling of 200 people at the airport will yield one criminal on average?
Given that "criminal" includes individuals with certain herbs of which the government disapproves (or any other "crime" which is in no way dangerous to others), then I'd say "yes, 1 in 200 is not at all unbelievable for random chance".
For a better comparison, the Spirit and Opportunity rovers: "The total cost of building, launching, landing and operating the rovers on the surface for the initial 90-Martian-day (sol) primary mission was US$820 million." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover The moon is a lot closer than Mars, so it doesn't seem entirely infeasible that they could do things significantly cheaper.
Sorry, but that simply isn't true. For any space mission, a very large chunk of the total cost is the cost of getting the payload into Earth orbit. Once there, you can use high-efficiency low-energy transfer orbits to get to just about anywhere in the solar system, with very little in the way of energy expenditure compared to the trip up to orbit.
The only real difference between having the Moon as a target as opposed to Mars is that the Mars mission will have a transit time measured in years, as opposed to days for the the Moon mission. For manned missions, those transit times are very significant (life support requirements), but for unmanned missions they don't add substantially to the cost.
Costs do increase with distance (you have to pay ground controllers to monitor things during those longer transits), but the the difference isn't as great as you appear to believe.
You seem to be unaware that you are responsible for who is in government. Law is how a civilized society addresses grievances between it's citizens without resorting to violence or terroristic threats. You don't just throw the whole idea out because you're too lazy to participate.
"Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people." -Lincoln
"I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating." - Boss Tweed
The "people" haven't been in control of our government during my lifetime, simply because we're only allowed to pick a name from a list that someone else prepares. I don't expect this to change anytime soon, and see no way the citizens can change it short of armed revolution (which is all to likely to result in something worse).
This makes me wonder how many politicians who favor strong copyright enforcement and huge windfalls for the RIAA download music illegally?
Probably not that many. First off, many of those politicians are technologically illiterate, and couldn't download a song if their lives depended on it.
Second, many of them are too wealthy to actually worry about such things - they just tell their personal assistants to get them the song(s) they want.
The illegal act is distribution - that is the only law being broken - making a copy and giving it away or distributing it to others.
Not entirely true. Under copyright law, there are *two* offenses - the creation of an unauthorized copy, and the unauthorized distribution of copies.
The reason the RIAA has been mainly working on the latter is quite simple - it's damn near impossible to prove someone created an unauthorized copy (by downloading it) unless you are the source for the download, which creates a legal mess (if the rights holder is providing the download, is it really unauthorized?).
There *have* been cases where the RIAA went after someone for distribution, failed to find enough evidence, but then proceeded to nail them for the unauthorized copies based on evidence obtained when they were trying to prove distribution.
So they won't actually go after someone for downloading, but if they find evidence of downloading while investigating distribution, they can and will pursue that.
Finally, we should up the penalties for copyright infringement, to instant death - basically we should have our eyeball prosthetics simply explode when unverified video is detected.
Hollywood is already way ahead of you - they've already developed "Dreck Technology" incorporated into many modern films, which can result in eyeballs exploding without the need for any prosthetics.
Unfortunately from what I have seen the DMCA-like statutes proposed in other countries seems to only expand the rights and powers of copyright owners without providing any additional protection for users. Don't let them pass. If that puts you in violation of TRIPS, tough. Withdraw from the damn thing: it's crap. If you must enact a local DMCA, at least make sure it goes no farther than the US one does (and insist that it create a fair use right if you don't already have one and does not reduce it if you do).
And most importantly, include some real penalties for misuse. The single largest (but by no means only) flaw in the U.S. DMCA is the fact that while those misusing it can *potentially* face charges of perjury, in reality there's no chance of anyone being prosecuted for doing so unless they are already on the shit list of a US Attorney.
The DMCA should have *civil* penalties for those who abuse it, so that those who are victimized by the abuse have a direct recourse, rather than having to rely on the government to deal with the abuser.
But should we throw out all software patents because in the abstract sense, not tied to a computer, they're mathematical algorithms? That's where we get the other policy argument: the Supreme Court is a political body. Software is worth a lot and represents a huge portion of the GDP. We're just starting to come out of a recession. If the Supreme Court invalidates business method patents, that's fine, because people will still keep using them if they're economically efficient, and 'business methods' are not products that are sold. But if the Supreme invalidates all software patents at a swoop, they just slashed the GDP by a significant amount, and the resulting market crash will make the Great Depression look like a minor blip.
How exactly would eliminating software patents have *any* effect on the GDP? Software will *still* be protected, as it always has been, by copyright law.
The US is an exception in allowing software patents in the first place. The rest of the world has gotten along without them just fine.
You might want to read the article. It states quite clearly that paying kids for books read increased standardized test scores on reading and that these were long term gains
Which actually makes a lot of sense. Reading is a skill, which must be developed by practice. If the children read more, they develop their reading skill more, and that higher skill level will provide an advantage to them in the future (potentially, for their entire life).
The problem isn't that children don't "love to learn". They do. It's natural for them. The problem is that children don't "love to learn" the subjects that adults think are important. If paying them as a mean to direct their learning in the direction we want it to go works, then I say go for it.
Well I think the main difference is that judges are supposed to follow the law as its written and not sway to public sentiment
If that were true then there would be no place for amicus curiae.
From the Wiki article on Amicus Curiae:
is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court", that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision whether to admit the information lies with the discretion of the court.
Please note that "to inform the judge of public opinion" is NOT listed in the above quotation.
That matches my experience. A disturbingly large number of people in law enforcement seem to think that their job is to bust people, as opposed to busting the guilty and protecting the innocent. Nor is it necessarily born out of malice, though there's that, too; most of the time, it's just tunnel-vision and sloppy thinking.
Tunnel vision, or training? Remember that there's no space on a cop's annual review form for "number of innocents cleared of wrongdoing", and police departments don't hand out commendations for proving that someone *didn't* commit a crime. So the police are *taught* that the way to do their job is to make busts that result in convictions, with little to no regard for actual guilt/innocence.
Slashdot Mirror
How will the police be able to prove that he actually drove that fast? First, he may have been bragging about his speed. Second, it may be possible that he didn't write that forum post at all. And third, while he's an idiot for confessing, in my country a confession without factual evidence of an actual crime or offense cannot be prosecuted.
1. He wasn't charged with speeding. He was charged with "careless driving", for which they don't need to prove you were speeding.
2. He admitted in his post as to the when and where, and mentioned that there was a person writing something down as he passed, probably a license plate number, but "he was too fast for them".
Given this, the police probably went to that neighborhood and asked around (if no complaint had already been filed, that is). That would give them evidence that a crime was committed. If they got a partial license plate number, a description of the car, and a description of the driver from witnesses, then they probably had enough to charge and likely convict him.
He was *not* convicted based on his forum post. He was *identified* as a result of the forum post, which later lead to police arresting him. He then pled guilty to the charge.
I know some people will say that copyright shouldn't exist at all. But ignoring that argument for a moment, I'm curious why copyright isn't part of state law and not federal. What is the reasoning?
Not a legal scholar, but I believe that since the power to establish copyright is explicitly granted to the federal government in the US Constitution, it's presumably forbidden for the states to have their own copyright laws.
Five billion dollars is still a lot of money.
But put the numbers in perspective.
US GDP $14,260,000,000,000 (2009 estimate, courtesy of the CIA)
$200 Billion equals 1.4% of the GDP
$5 Billion equals 0.035% of the GDP
One is a problem worthy of immediate attention. The other is a problem to worry about when nothing else is pressing.
What this really concerns is big business shutting out small scale farmers. Only four farms are being allowed essentially shutting out small growers. That didn't take long. It's sad because small family farms could actually make a profit growing pot but there's simply too much profit involved to allow small farmers to be allowed to play. I wonder how much lobbying went into this decision?
What makes you think there will be all that much profit? The plants are *not* hard to cultivate, and it sounds like distribution will be strictly local.
Don't assume that the price of something on the black market has any bearing on what it will sell for if legalized - most of the current price of pot is the typically huge black-market markup.
Of course, it will undoubtedly be taxed at a ludicrous rate, but it won't be the growers raking in the dough from that.
Abundance has ZERO to do with ownership.
Stealing a blade of grass off my lawn makes you a thief.
Got it?
Now, get off it.
And if someone steals a blade of grass from your lawn, they should be required to recompense you for the value of that blade of grass. Which, due to abundance, is basically nothing.
Get it now?
I wish I could find the link. The study was commissioned by a book publisher trying to find our how much piracy hurt book sales. Generally when a book is published, sales spike a few days later then drop, and it's a couple of weeks before it's scanned and on the internet. What they found was that when it hit the internet, rather than a drop there was a second spike.
Perhaps you were thinking of Eric Flint's posts on the Baen Free Library. In particular, read his Prime Palaver #6, where he shows the actual effect that releasing works for free had upon his sales (Hint - he ain't unhappy with the results).
Not really. The lawmakers established a fine of $250,000 per song. They'd probably be disappointed to see it reduced to just over $2000
I doubt it. When the law was written, it was written to cover commercial infringement, as at that time there was no technology that would have allowed for the wide-spread non-commercial infringement that is commonplace today.
The law really needs to be rewritten to differentiate between the two, with reasonable (if any) penalties for P2P type infringement. However, given the current influence of the media corporations with government, maybe we should leave well enough alone...
That's why I think the alternative fuel of choice will (and should) be Hydrogen. People (consumers and stations and providers) already know how to deal with liquids, it's just an adaptation of existing infrastructure.
Hydrogen is only liquid at temperatures below -250C - I doubt there are many consumers and stations and providers that have any experience with cryo temperature liquids...
Wait a second. Doesn't the US have its own rocky deserts that are far, far safer and politically stabler from which to extract energy? Isn't the US the biggest economy in the world, *by far*? We should be the ones announcing these kinds of initiatives. This is the kind of infrastructure nation-building that would leap us to the forefront of alternative energy research, development, and exports, ensuring the growth of our economy for decades to come.
Yup - we have tons of places where solar power could be deployed (Mojave Desert in California, large parts of Nevada, Utah, and Texas, and practically the entire states of Arizona and New Mexico). And for the most part, these prime locations are either already part of the national power grid, or close enough to it to easily connect.
However, we have politically powerful energy companies, which have a vested interest in seeing that we continue to burn off precious resources (oil and coal) for as long as possible. We also have many NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard") groups that are theoretically in favor of renewable energy, so long as it doesn't create "eyesores" that affect their property values.
I think when future historians write about the US, I don't think the words "wisdom" or "foresight" will appear, unless prefixed with the phrase "lack of". :(
While true in theory, I'm not sure that'd work in practice. Virtually every law puts SOME financial burden on the states, for enforcement at the local level or what-have-you. Forbidding "unfunded mandates" would dramatically increase bookkeeping as the federal government would have to try to track every cost of every law and allocate money to the states accordingly.
I'm sorry, but I don't see ANY situation where Congress should be able to pass any law that does not include a mechanism for paying for enforcement. There is even a "rule" in the House of Representatives to this effect. For most federal laws, it is federal agencies that are given responsibility for enforcement (and who'll throw a fit if they catch the states even trying to enforce "their" laws).
For a good example of how these unfunded mandates happen, read up on the Real ID controversy. Basically, the federal government handed down rules on what will constitute a valid ID for federal purposes, but then left it to the states to pay the (large) costs of actually implementing such a system. If the federal government believes that such a standardized ID is required, then why can't it foot the bill for it?
(To answer my own question - because Congress is fully aware that any attempt to actually implement a National ID system would encounter too many objections. It's not a matter of costs, in this case, but political viability).
Having actual people representing the states' interests would probably be a more effective mechanism than a constitutional amendment. That being said, I generally don't support adding layers of interference between the people and the government, so I prefer the current system.
I'd prefer not having to tweak the Constitution to get elected officials to behave responsibly. My post was mainly a statement that the states DO have the power to solve such problems, if they ever get off their butts and use it. Who know, even a credible *threat* of such an amendment being passed might serve as a "wake up call" for our Congresscritters to start doing their jobs properly.
I would still like to get rid of the 17th Amendment. Having the state governments representatives in Congress acts as another check against tyranny. One of the big problems states have right now is unfunded mandates coming down from on high. That might be prevented or at least curtailed.
Which the states can fix any time they want. How? By passing an amendment prohibiting such unfunded mandates. While to date every amendment to the Constitution has originated from Congress, the Constitution allows such amendments to be enacted with no involvement of the federal government whatsoever.
The problem isn't that states don't have the power to limit the federal government. The problem is that they have consistently refused to assert their power to do so.
Well, until such a research is done, you're talking out of your ass. The random sampling could result in 0.0005% arrest rate, for all you know. 0.5% means one in 200 was arrested -- do you really think that random sampling of 200 people at the airport will yield one criminal on average?
Given that "criminal" includes individuals with certain herbs of which the government disapproves (or any other "crime" which is in no way dangerous to others), then I'd say "yes, 1 in 200 is not at all unbelievable for random chance".
For a better comparison, the Spirit and Opportunity rovers:
"The total cost of building, launching, landing and operating the rovers on the surface for the initial 90-Martian-day (sol) primary mission was US$820 million." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover
The moon is a lot closer than Mars, so it doesn't seem entirely infeasible that they could do things significantly cheaper.
Sorry, but that simply isn't true. For any space mission, a very large chunk of the total cost is the cost of getting the payload into Earth orbit. Once there, you can use high-efficiency low-energy transfer orbits to get to just about anywhere in the solar system, with very little in the way of energy expenditure compared to the trip up to orbit.
The only real difference between having the Moon as a target as opposed to Mars is that the Mars mission will have a transit time measured in years, as opposed to days for the the Moon mission. For manned missions, those transit times are very significant (life support requirements), but for unmanned missions they don't add substantially to the cost.
Costs do increase with distance (you have to pay ground controllers to monitor things during those longer transits), but the the difference isn't as great as you appear to believe.
You seem to be unaware that you are responsible for who is in government. Law is how a civilized society addresses grievances between it's citizens without resorting to violence or terroristic threats. You don't just throw the whole idea out because you're too lazy to participate.
"Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people." -Lincoln
"I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating." - Boss Tweed
The "people" haven't been in control of our government during my lifetime, simply because we're only allowed to pick a name from a list that someone else prepares. I don't expect this to change anytime soon, and see no way the citizens can change it short of armed revolution (which is all to likely to result in something worse).
This makes me wonder how many politicians who favor strong copyright enforcement and huge windfalls for the RIAA download music illegally?
Probably not that many. First off, many of those politicians are technologically illiterate, and couldn't download a song if their lives depended on it.
Second, many of them are too wealthy to actually worry about such things - they just tell their personal assistants to get them the song(s) they want.
The illegal act is distribution - that is the only law being broken - making a copy and giving it away or distributing it to others.
Not entirely true. Under copyright law, there are *two* offenses - the creation of an unauthorized copy, and the unauthorized distribution of copies.
The reason the RIAA has been mainly working on the latter is quite simple - it's damn near impossible to prove someone created an unauthorized copy (by downloading it) unless you are the source for the download, which creates a legal mess (if the rights holder is providing the download, is it really unauthorized?).
There *have* been cases where the RIAA went after someone for distribution, failed to find enough evidence, but then proceeded to nail them for the unauthorized copies based on evidence obtained when they were trying to prove distribution.
So they won't actually go after someone for downloading, but if they find evidence of downloading while investigating distribution, they can and will pursue that.
Finally, we should up the penalties for copyright infringement, to instant death - basically we should have our eyeball prosthetics simply explode when unverified video is detected.
Hollywood is already way ahead of you - they've already developed "Dreck Technology" incorporated into many modern films, which can result in eyeballs exploding without the need for any prosthetics.
Of course, they didn't do it deliberately...
"It has already given us remarkable views of Uranus..."
Well, I never!
You most certainly *did*. And NASA has the pics to prove it.
Unfortunately from what I have seen the DMCA-like statutes proposed in other countries seems to only expand the rights and powers of copyright owners without providing any additional protection for users. Don't let them pass. If that puts you in violation of TRIPS, tough. Withdraw from the damn thing: it's crap. If you must enact a local DMCA, at least make sure it goes no farther than the US one does (and insist that it create a fair use right if you don't already have one and does not reduce it if you do).
And most importantly, include some real penalties for misuse. The single largest (but by no means only) flaw in the U.S. DMCA is the fact that while those misusing it can *potentially* face charges of perjury, in reality there's no chance of anyone being prosecuted for doing so unless they are already on the shit list of a US Attorney.
The DMCA should have *civil* penalties for those who abuse it, so that those who are victimized by the abuse have a direct recourse, rather than having to rely on the government to deal with the abuser.
But should we throw out all software patents because in the abstract sense, not tied to a computer, they're mathematical algorithms? That's where we get the other policy argument: the Supreme Court is a political body. Software is worth a lot and represents a huge portion of the GDP. We're just starting to come out of a recession. If the Supreme Court invalidates business method patents, that's fine, because people will still keep using them if they're economically efficient, and 'business methods' are not products that are sold. But if the Supreme invalidates all software patents at a swoop, they just slashed the GDP by a significant amount, and the resulting market crash will make the Great Depression look like a minor blip.
How exactly would eliminating software patents have *any* effect on the GDP? Software will *still* be protected, as it always has been, by copyright law.
The US is an exception in allowing software patents in the first place. The rest of the world has gotten along without them just fine.
You might want to read the article. It states quite clearly that paying kids for books read increased standardized test scores on reading and that these were long term gains
Which actually makes a lot of sense. Reading is a skill, which must be developed by practice. If the children read more, they develop their reading skill more, and that higher skill level will provide an advantage to them in the future (potentially, for their entire life).
The problem isn't that children don't "love to learn". They do. It's natural for them. The problem is that children don't "love to learn" the subjects that adults think are important. If paying them as a mean to direct their learning in the direction we want it to go works, then I say go for it.
I do my job because I love it.
I've been offered more money (sometimes *much* more) to do something else. Each time, I turned it down.
So you're getting paid in "enjoyment and a little money" rather than "a lot of money". Big deal - you are still being motivated by your pay.
Well I think the main difference is that judges are supposed to follow the law as its written and not sway to public sentiment
If that were true then there would be no place for amicus curiae.
From the Wiki article on Amicus Curiae:
is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court", that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision whether to admit the information lies with the discretion of the court.
Please note that "to inform the judge of public opinion" is NOT listed in the above quotation.
That matches my experience. A disturbingly large number of people in law enforcement seem to think that their job is to bust people, as opposed to busting the guilty and protecting the innocent. Nor is it necessarily born out of malice, though there's that, too; most of the time, it's just tunnel-vision and sloppy thinking.
Tunnel vision, or training? Remember that there's no space on a cop's annual review form for "number of innocents cleared of wrongdoing", and police departments don't hand out commendations for proving that someone *didn't* commit a crime. So the police are *taught* that the way to do their job is to make busts that result in convictions, with little to no regard for actual guilt/innocence.
how are we sure it's gravity producing the lensing effect and not some other force?
Because gravity is the only force we know that is capable of doing so.