I'm fairly sure that a lynch mob intent on doing away with people who had acted as executioners would not be particularly interested in discussing a 20% probability of whether that person was using a rifle loaded with a blank.
And if it ever did get as far as a courtroom, someone would surely bring up the obvious point that they were, after all, willing to pull the trigger in the full knowledge that they had an 80% chance of having a live round. Someone who is prepared to bring in an ex post facto law would probably also have few qualms about ensuring that not having achieved what you set out to do through sheer dumb luck would not count as a defence.
so close them and sell advertising to the German market from Austria... (only because you've got a decent chance of recruiting German speakers in Austria - otherwise you could sell it from anywhere else in the EU)
over 90% of individuals indicted at the federal level are convicted without trial (i.e. plead guilty) of the remaining approx. 10% who go to trial, 90% LOSE, and are convicted
Have you got a source for that? I've seen those sorts of figures chucked about before, and it kinda feels true, but it would be good to see some actual statistics.
Well, ok, up to 150% of what the prosecution are being paid then...
Another interesting idea may be to allow sanctions to be levied against, or to give a successful defendant a cause of action against a prosecutor who brings charges which are eventually found not to have been supported by a preponderance of the evidence (ie if they couldn't get over the civil standard, the charges should not have been brought).
We expect them to be professionals who do their job without using court filings to take sarcastic potshots at the defendant for having the temerity to defend themselves.
from the last paragraph of the first page of the article:
“They made it clear that they would do nothing. I was expected to do everything, to modify the system to allow myself to get in to get the information they wanted,” he says. “Their whole intention was for me to retrieve information from those databases that were located in foreign countries. They were going to use me to get to the clients. But I’m not a hacker, I’m a software developer.”
They want him to do it and give them the information, not create a backdoor for them to use. That way it's not illegal.
Unbelievable. The correct response is for the countries in which the gambling sites in question, who are having their lawful business interefered with, reside to start taking retaliatory action - trade embargoes, expelled ambassadors, moratorium on extradition, closing airbases, etc.
Ever considered the fact that UCEprotect might be a legitimate organization? (I wouldn't know)
But then you say:
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS AN OPTIONAL OFFER ONLY. YOU ARE LOSING YOUR RIGHT TO EXPRESSDELIST YOUR IP IF YOU ARE STUPID AND CLAIMING THIS WOULD BE BLACKMAIL, EXTORTION, SCAM OR SIMILAR BULLSHIT.
I think we know whether they're a professional organisation... Let's also take a look at their website, and their 'Cart00ney' publication of legal documents Piratebay-stylee. If they're not an outright illegitimate organisation, they're a jolly dubious one. They also seem to imply that they're involved with 'Bavarian municipals', but seem awfully coy about naming them.
A good response may be to draw the attention of the service providers you can't get email through to as to the nature of the outfit they're getting their blacklist from.
I've answered telephones in an office. If I don't want to transfer you, you don't get transferred; doubly so if the person you want to be transferred to has specifically told me not to transfer you to them. I was by no means a tyrannical martinet on the phone - there are people who are much more effective gatekeepers than I - any company trying to delaying paying its bills will have employed such people to ward off telephone calls.
but I am saying you cannot use 2 minutes of video to indicate whether or not this was right
Actually, it's completely right.
This is one of those situtations where 'context' is just muddying the issue.
The key question is: At the point where the officer took the decision to fire the Taser, was she posing a sufficient threat the the officer, or someone else (within the officer's reasonable, articulable, perception) to justify its usage?
Using a taser is at least equivalent to smacking someone in the face with a batton.
Ah, but it's not.
You can't put a picture of the pain caused by a taser onto every television screen in the nation. You can put the photographs of a smashed face onto a television screen.
who gets to decide what's justified and what isn't?
The courts.
The general principle is that you're not allowed to use violence against other people. There are, of course, exceptions written into the law. It is the job of the courts, and not departmental policy, to decide if those exceptions apply to this particular circumstance.
Ergo, the whole department policy angle is a smokescreen.
We need to lose this presumtion that police officers are justified in their use of force unless proven otherwise. Any officer who uses more than minimal force (a hand on the arm, etc) against a member of the public should be prosecuted, and forced to defend their actions before a jury, as a matter of course.
It's technology news in that it provides more proof that the taser has inevitably slipped down the slope from a weapon to be used for defence to a pain-compliance device to be deployed on people who won't do what they're told.
Gamespy's Facebook page is particularly amusing, as someone keep parroting the line back to angry gamers that, despite Gamespy's logos being plastered all over the game, they aren't responsible for continuing to provide the online service, and gamers should 'reach out' the the game publishers... and then there's the not-so-subtle pot shot at publishers for being stingey and 'choosing not to support' the games.
It's hilarious - while it may be techically accurate - 95% won't understand, or care to understand, the difference, and will continue to blame Gamespy. The publishers, of course, will be only to happy to let Gamespy take the fall.
Having shredded Gamespy's goodwill, I have only one thing to ask: Would you say that was $2.8m well spent, Glu?
Hi! I really like the ribbon, it's a fantastic, (largely) intuitive interface. When I have to use Office 2003 on our Citrix farm, it makes me want to scream in frustration and how badly laid out it all is.
But then I started using it after a number of years away from Office, so didn't have a built-up attachment to the old way of doing things.
The government already steps in by providing courts with the power to enforce their judgements.
You punish companies by introducing loser-pays, or loser-pays-up-to-the-value-of-their-own-costs. Settling a class-action over 1,000,000 people swizzed out of $10 will be nothing compared to settling 10,000 cases with individuals, each with its own costs bill.
Worse even than that, you're not allowed to know that this information is being kept about you, or shared with potential employers. If you have an enhanced CRB check done, your reference copy may not include some information sent to the requestor of the check, and they're not allowed to tell you what their copy says.
technically, it doesn't. vis. It's more usual, especially as the police can now make an arrest over any criminal offence (which they couldn't until less than 10 years ago), but someone can be prosecuted without an arrest being made.
The primary cause of the word 'duty' getting used is that the person proposing the idea knows that they haven't got a reason that will stand up to scrutiny.
So what law do you think creates an open-ended right for the owner of the property to create their own bye-laws which can then themselves be enforced through the ordinary criminal law process?
or, company B sues Government D because its seizure of the assets of Company A in a manner which has turned out not to be according to law has resulted in Company A being unable to fulfil its obligations to Company B, causing company B financial loss.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they can try, but...
I'm fairly sure that a lynch mob intent on doing away with people who had acted as executioners would not be particularly interested in discussing a 20% probability of whether that person was using a rifle loaded with a blank.
And if it ever did get as far as a courtroom, someone would surely bring up the obvious point that they were, after all, willing to pull the trigger in the full knowledge that they had an 80% chance of having a live round. Someone who is prepared to bring in an ex post facto law would probably also have few qualms about ensuring that not having achieved what you set out to do through sheer dumb luck would not count as a defence.
so close them and sell advertising to the German market from Austria... (only because you've got a decent chance of recruiting German speakers in Austria - otherwise you could sell it from anywhere else in the EU)
over 90% of individuals indicted at the federal level are convicted without trial (i.e. plead guilty)
of the remaining approx. 10% who go to trial, 90% LOSE, and are convicted
Have you got a source for that? I've seen those sorts of figures chucked about before, and it kinda feels true, but it would be good to see some actual statistics.
"It is a telegram, it is ordering an advance, but it's addressed to a 'Catpain Blackudder'."
Well, ok, up to 150% of what the prosecution are being paid then...
Another interesting idea may be to allow sanctions to be levied against, or to give a successful defendant a cause of action against a prosecutor who brings charges which are eventually found not to have been supported by a preponderance of the evidence (ie if they couldn't get over the civil standard, the charges should not have been brought).
But we expect a lawyer to see it?
We expect them to be professionals who do their job without using court filings to take sarcastic potshots at the defendant for having the temerity to defend themselves.
I think my kitchen scales are off - let's just weigh a litre of tap water and find out...
from the last paragraph of the first page of the article:
“They made it clear that they would do nothing. I was expected to do everything, to modify the system to allow myself to get in to get the information they wanted,” he says. “Their whole intention was for me to retrieve information from those databases that were located in foreign countries. They were going to use me to get to the clients. But I’m not a hacker, I’m a software developer.”
They want him to do it and give them the information, not create a backdoor for them to use. That way it's not illegal.
Unbelievable. The correct response is for the countries in which the gambling sites in question, who are having their lawful business interefered with, reside to start taking retaliatory action - trade embargoes, expelled ambassadors, moratorium on extradition, closing airbases, etc.
You say:
Ever considered the fact that UCEprotect might be a legitimate organization? (I wouldn't know)
But then you say:
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS AN OPTIONAL OFFER ONLY.
YOU ARE LOSING YOUR RIGHT TO EXPRESSDELIST YOUR IP IF YOU ARE STUPID AND CLAIMING THIS WOULD BE BLACKMAIL, EXTORTION, SCAM OR SIMILAR BULLSHIT.
I think we know whether they're a professional organisation...
Let's also take a look at their website, and their 'Cart00ney' publication of legal documents Piratebay-stylee.
If they're not an outright illegitimate organisation, they're a jolly dubious one.
They also seem to imply that they're involved with 'Bavarian municipals', but seem awfully coy about naming them.
A good response may be to draw the attention of the service providers you can't get email through to as to the nature of the outfit they're getting their blacklist from.
Absolutely agree about writing.
I've answered telephones in an office. If I don't want to transfer you, you don't get transferred; doubly so if the person you want to be transferred to has specifically told me not to transfer you to them. I was by no means a tyrannical martinet on the phone - there are people who are much more effective gatekeepers than I - any company trying to delaying paying its bills will have employed such people to ward off telephone calls.
but I am saying you cannot use 2 minutes of video to indicate whether or not this was right
Actually, it's completely right.
This is one of those situtations where 'context' is just muddying the issue.
The key question is: At the point where the officer took the decision to fire the Taser, was she posing a sufficient threat the the officer, or someone else (within the officer's reasonable, articulable, perception) to justify its usage?
Using a taser is at least equivalent to smacking someone in the face with a batton.
Ah, but it's not.
You can't put a picture of the pain caused by a taser onto every television screen in the nation. You can put the photographs of a smashed face onto a television screen.
who gets to decide what's justified and what isn't?
The courts.
The general principle is that you're not allowed to use violence against other people. There are, of course, exceptions written into the law. It is the job of the courts, and not departmental policy, to decide if those exceptions apply to this particular circumstance.
Ergo, the whole department policy angle is a smokescreen.
We need to lose this presumtion that police officers are justified in their use of force unless proven otherwise. Any officer who uses more than minimal force (a hand on the arm, etc) against a member of the public should be prosecuted, and forced to defend their actions before a jury, as a matter of course.
It's technology news in that it provides more proof that the taser has inevitably slipped down the slope from a weapon to be used for defence to a pain-compliance device to be deployed on people who won't do what they're told.
Gamespy's Facebook page is particularly amusing, as someone keep parroting the line back to angry gamers that, despite Gamespy's logos being plastered all over the game, they aren't responsible for continuing to provide the online service, and gamers should 'reach out' the the game publishers... and then there's the not-so-subtle pot shot at publishers for being stingey and 'choosing not to support' the games.
It's hilarious - while it may be techically accurate - 95% won't understand, or care to understand, the difference, and will continue to blame Gamespy. The publishers, of course, will be only to happy to let Gamespy take the fall.
Having shredded Gamespy's goodwill, I have only one thing to ask: Would you say that was $2.8m well spent, Glu?
Hi!
I really like the ribbon, it's a fantastic, (largely) intuitive interface. When I have to use Office 2003 on our Citrix farm, it makes me want to scream in frustration and how badly laid out it all is.
But then I started using it after a number of years away from Office, so didn't have a built-up attachment to the old way of doing things.
The government already steps in by providing courts with the power to enforce their judgements.
You punish companies by introducing loser-pays, or loser-pays-up-to-the-value-of-their-own-costs. Settling a class-action over 1,000,000 people swizzed out of $10 will be nothing compared to settling 10,000 cases with individuals, each with its own costs bill.
Worse even than that, you're not allowed to know that this information is being kept about you, or shared with potential employers. If you have an enhanced CRB check done, your reference copy may not include some information sent to the requestor of the check, and they're not allowed to tell you what their copy says.
Scary stuff.
technically, it doesn't. vis. It's more usual, especially as the police can now make an arrest over any criminal offence (which they couldn't until less than 10 years ago), but someone can be prosecuted without an arrest being made.
The primary cause of the word 'duty' getting used is that the person proposing the idea knows that they haven't got a reason that will stand up to scrutiny.
you wonder what they're supposed to do if everyone has scarpered by the time they arrive...
Do they cuff each other?
So what law do you think creates an open-ended right for the owner of the property to create their own bye-laws which can then themselves be enforced through the ordinary criminal law process?
Yes, we tried to organise a small anarchist community a few years ago... but people wouldn't follow the rules.
(Thank you, I'll be here all week)
or, company B sues Government D because its seizure of the assets of Company A in a manner which has turned out not to be according to law has resulted in Company A being unable to fulfil its obligations to Company B, causing company B financial loss.