This judge used the tool he had available to lash out at this guy for locking his fucking BlackBerry up.
And now it should cost him his job & an enormous pile of money - contempt orders are not for personal vendettas. The problem with contempt orders is that there is NO proper system to watch that they're only used appropriately. When they're mainly used by lower-court judges having temper tantrums, the only recourse is to go to the next court up, which is entirely populated by people who were lower court judges having temper tantrums 10 years ago. In reality, there is no-one whose job involves frustrating contempt orders, and so judges get away with this sort of crap. The complete absence of any real consequences for judges who issue false orders or the people who carry them out doesn't help, either.
I always buy my games on disc so that if the balloon goes up, I still have the disc and the cd-key, and can keep right on enjoying my product.
This week, that changed when I waited several days for my game disc to show up, just to discover that I had to tie it to my steam account to make it work. This also means that if I forget my password, my game, which I spent £20 on, stops working. Steam's moronic update system also meant that I had to ass about for several hours trying to get a 2-3GB patch before I was allowed to play, and once I got it working I discovered that it was not a very good game anyway. (And is clearly a console-port with the controls completely dumbed down from the game that it's supposed to be the sequel to.)
On a related note, Chris Taylor is off my list of 'people who can do no wrong'.
But on a serious note, it should be interesting to see, after 1 billion fingerprints (about 1/6 of the world population) are gathered, whether the assumption that they're unique is still valid.
Last hitting in LOL gets you about 1/2 the gold you would get in HON.
Then it's still too much. The giant gold bounty you get for killing an enemy hero sets up self-reinforcing success and severely reduces the chances of a given game staying competitive for any large proportion of the total duration.
in my experience HoN has little to do with individual skill, it's just about having the right hero for the opponent - it's classic rock-paper-scissors balancing, which doesn't work in a game where you pick your hero at the start and have to use it all the way through. It's like playing best of 3 rounds rock-paper-scissors where you have to stick with your original choice for all 3 rounds.
I agree, the community sucks, but I think the other problem with HoN is that they seem to have identified the worst elements of DotA, and then magnified them. I got into the closed beta, played about 7 games, and gave up. DotA started to go downhill a few months after TFT came out. I was hoping that a brand new implementation of the game might return to the core elements which made it so good, wihout any of the crappy 'pro' stuff which just made in unplayable, and it hasn't.
Actually, you're probably right. Even if all of those people take Sony to court, and if Sony ignores them, and they all win $1000 by default, that's still only $10m, which is presumably peanuts to Sony.
largely because they don't actually use them very often, people assume that use of such power is properly regulated. In some countries, it probably is.
you're right that a person with a warped sense of right & wrong would throw a spanner in the works. But I'd rather someone let an injustice stand because they had a warped sense of right & wrong and voted with their conscience, than a new injustice be done on someone with the full authority of the courts because a person with a non-warped sense of right & wrong voted against their conscience.
I believe your description of the trial and deliberations is more accurate than you could know. As a non-conformist and “libertarian” (who has had some experiences not unlike yours) I was not comfortable with my vote, but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors. I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently. In the end it came down to the question “Was the law broken?”. While I would much rather have a beer and discussion with you than Officer B. I never the less felt obligated to vote my conscience. I also believe most, if not all, the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency, we, unfortunately have no say in that matter.
I'm not sure if you're quoting (I've seen that exact block of text in 3 places now), or if you're actually saying it. Here's is my response.
I was not comfortable with my vote
I also believe most, if not all, the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency, we, unfortunately have no say in that matter.
Actually, you do. Or, rather, you did, until you threw it away by not putting the khybosh on the case (by doing what you admit that you thought was right) by refusing to convict.
but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors.
I'm glad to see that you put your oath (aka some words that you said) ahead of justice. Quoth Einstein "Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it."
I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently.
Peter Watts was confused and disorientated by conflicting orders, 2 punches in the face and pepper spray. It is not certain that he was physically or mentally capable of immediately processing and obeying he instruction when given. That took me around 20 seconds to think of - what the hell were you doing that 12 of you couldn't figure it out over a period of several hours? On a related note, you don't NEED to find a reason why you should do the right thing. What you've just said is "we couldn't find a reason to justify doing the right thing, so we did the wrong thing"
In conclusion, you're a fool who utterly failed to discharge his duty as a juror properly, and has significantly harmed an innocent man as a result.
I was arguing the point that you made elsewhere that the convention only protects soldiers of signatory nations, (so if our enemy hasn't signed it then we don't have to treat their PoWs properly). Looks like I misread the point that you were making in this particular post.
But anyway, the situation where one nation (your definition) is in armed conflict (convention's definition) with a group of people who don't represent a nation is a new one. The closest parallel is probably that of a civil war, where one side is a government and the other isn't. In that situation the convention still has minimum requirements (i.e. people involved are still protected by the convention).
In any case, virtually anyone not protected by the 3rd convention is protected by the 4th convention, and both would require a proper investigation into which convention would apply (if any, though - as I've said - it would be unlikely that neither would apply). No-one gets to make a summary decision that a person is not protected by either convention.
'Enemy Combatant' is not a term which appears in the convention - the defintion provided is your definition, and has no force in law. The convention probably requires persons captured in this type of conflict to be treated as sort-of PoWs, but it's never been tested. The term 'Enemy Combatant' was invented deliberately to try and end-around the requirements of the convention by use of the logic which you outlined in your take-away point.
no.:-( So I'll replace my example with this section 'Forces Involved' The FIDF would count as a garden-variety militia, but the former members who turned up as well would be civilians spontaneously acting to defend their homes, and would have been entitled to be treated as PoWs, along with the other civilians who 'offered their services to the governor'
nonetheless, bandwidth which tey could sell is potential money in, assuming that they can find a buyer. This arrangement guarantees no money out which they weren't going to spend anyway. To that extent, it's free.
I saw a fascinating presentation by an eminent professor of physics on what Meadow did wrong. It boiled down to mis-applying bayes' theorem. Meadow had got an extremely high probability of the accused being guilty out of it, what the professor did was poit out that (a) the probability put in for chance of two babies dying couldn't be taken by simply multiplying the chance of one dying by itself as the event may not be independent (b) that would be rather moot because the accused's chance of having 2 dead babies was 1. Putting the correct numbers in and turning the handle produces a chance of guilt of about 1%.
What was most shocking was that, given the elementary error in the application of statistics, no-one called him on it in court.
Slashdot Mirror
This judge used the tool he had available to lash out at this guy for locking his fucking BlackBerry up.
And now it should cost him his job & an enormous pile of money - contempt orders are not for personal vendettas.
The problem with contempt orders is that there is NO proper system to watch that they're only used appropriately. When they're mainly used by lower-court judges having temper tantrums, the only recourse is to go to the next court up, which is entirely populated by people who were lower court judges having temper tantrums 10 years ago. In reality, there is no-one whose job involves frustrating contempt orders, and so judges get away with this sort of crap. The complete absence of any real consequences for judges who issue false orders or the people who carry them out doesn't help, either.
Likewise - "it was going to be you, until you let he Digital Economy Bill through"
I always buy my games on disc so that if the balloon goes up, I still have the disc and the cd-key, and can keep right on enjoying my product.
This week, that changed when I waited several days for my game disc to show up, just to discover that I had to tie it to my steam account to make it work. This also means that if I forget my password, my game, which I spent £20 on, stops working. Steam's moronic update system also meant that I had to ass about for several hours trying to get a 2-3GB patch before I was allowed to play, and once I got it working I discovered that it was not a very good game anyway. (And is clearly a console-port with the controls completely dumbed down from the game that it's supposed to be the sequel to.)
On a related note, Chris Taylor is off my list of 'people who can do no wrong'.
vis
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
The UK?
Am also struggling to imagine how the photo and fingerprint collection is going to happen, technology-wise.
Lots of these
Might be expensive, though.
But on a serious note, it should be interesting to see, after 1 billion fingerprints (about 1/6 of the world population) are gathered, whether the assumption that they're unique is still valid.
watch some DS9 sometime!...
BWAHAHAHAHAHA... I'll get my coat.
Last hitting in LOL gets you about 1/2 the gold you would get in HON.
Then it's still too much. The giant gold bounty you get for killing an enemy hero sets up self-reinforcing success and severely reduces the chances of a given game staying competitive for any large proportion of the total duration.
in my experience HoN has little to do with individual skill, it's just about having the right hero for the opponent - it's classic rock-paper-scissors balancing, which doesn't work in a game where you pick your hero at the start and have to use it all the way through. It's like playing best of 3 rounds rock-paper-scissors where you have to stick with your original choice for all 3 rounds.
I agree, the community sucks, but I think the other problem with HoN is that they seem to have identified the worst elements of DotA, and then magnified them. I got into the closed beta, played about 7 games, and gave up. DotA started to go downhill a few months after TFT came out. I was hoping that a brand new implementation of the game might return to the core elements which made it so good, wihout any of the crappy 'pro' stuff which just made in unplayable, and it hasn't.
You know, that division that used to be the winner in the market before they lost focus...
It used to be the winner until the market twigged that none of the Playstations has ever been very good, and has refused to be fooled a third time
Actually, you're probably right. Even if all of those people take Sony to court, and if Sony ignores them, and they all win $1000 by default, that's still only $10m, which is presumably peanuts to Sony.
Also, if he starts a war, doesn't that give everyone else carte blanche to roll in and give him a kicking?
largely because they don't actually use them very often, people assume that use of such power is properly regulated. In some countries, it probably is.
A half inch jack wouldn't make any sense in practice.
You'd think, but a little-known fact about the 1/2" jack is that it can, in a pinch, substitute for .50cal ammunition.
sounds like the lack of explanation confused the jury...
The jurors convicted after watching the video. That should tell you something.
They're dangeroius morons not fit to call themselves rational human beings?
you're right that a person with a warped sense of right & wrong would throw a spanner in the works. But I'd rather someone let an injustice stand because they had a warped sense of right & wrong and voted with their conscience, than a new injustice be done on someone with the full authority of the courts because a person with a non-warped sense of right & wrong voted against their conscience.
I believe your description of the trial and deliberations is more accurate than you could know. As a non-conformist and “libertarian” (who has had some experiences not unlike yours) I was not comfortable with my vote, but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors. I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently. In the end it came down to the question “Was the law broken?”. While I would much rather have a beer and discussion with you than Officer B. I never the less felt obligated to vote my conscience. I also believe most, if not all, the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency, we, unfortunately have no say in that matter.
I'm not sure if you're quoting (I've seen that exact block of text in 3 places now), or if you're actually saying it. Here's is my response.
I was not comfortable with my vote
I also believe most, if not all, the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency, we, unfortunately have no say in that matter.
Actually, you do. Or, rather, you did, until you threw it away by not putting the khybosh on the case (by doing what you admit that you thought was right) by refusing to convict.
but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors.
I'm glad to see that you put your oath (aka some words that you said) ahead of justice. Quoth Einstein "Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it."
I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently.
Peter Watts was confused and disorientated by conflicting orders, 2 punches in the face and pepper spray. It is not certain that he was physically or mentally capable of immediately processing and obeying he instruction when given.
That took me around 20 seconds to think of - what the hell were you doing that 12 of you couldn't figure it out over a period of several hours?
On a related note, you don't NEED to find a reason why you should do the right thing. What you've just said is "we couldn't find a reason to justify doing the right thing, so we did the wrong thing"
In conclusion, you're a fool who utterly failed to discharge his duty as a juror properly, and has significantly harmed an innocent man as a result.
Whichever legislator thought up that particular law deserves jail time.
as do the jury. At a minimum.
I was arguing the point that you made elsewhere that the convention only protects soldiers of signatory nations, (so if our enemy hasn't signed it then we don't have to treat their PoWs properly).
Looks like I misread the point that you were making in this particular post.
But anyway, the situation where one nation (your definition) is in armed conflict (convention's definition) with a group of people who don't represent a nation is a new one. The closest parallel is probably that of a civil war, where one side is a government and the other isn't. In that situation the convention still has minimum requirements (i.e. people involved are still protected by the convention).
In any case, virtually anyone not protected by the 3rd convention is protected by the 4th convention, and both would require a proper investigation into which convention would apply (if any, though - as I've said - it would be unlikely that neither would apply). No-one gets to make a summary decision that a person is not protected by either convention.
'Enemy Combatant' is not a term which appears in the convention - the defintion provided is your definition, and has no force in law. The convention probably requires persons captured in this type of conflict to be treated as sort-of PoWs, but it's never been tested. The term 'Enemy Combatant' was invented deliberately to try and end-around the requirements of the convention by use of the logic which you outlined in your take-away point.
no. :-(
So I'll replace my example with this section 'Forces Involved'
The FIDF would count as a garden-variety militia, but the former members who turned up as well would be civilians spontaneously acting to defend their homes, and would have been entitled to be treated as PoWs, along with the other civilians who 'offered their services to the governor'
see Application -> Common Article 2 -> 3rd bullet point
Drilling down to its references:
[pdf] page 50, paragraph 3.
nonetheless, bandwidth which tey could sell is potential money in, assuming that they can find a buyer. This arrangement guarantees no money out which they weren't going to spend anyway. To that extent, it's free.
I saw a fascinating presentation by an eminent professor of physics on what Meadow did wrong. It boiled down to mis-applying bayes' theorem. Meadow had got an extremely high probability of the accused being guilty out of it, what the professor did was poit out that (a) the probability put in for chance of two babies dying couldn't be taken by simply multiplying the chance of one dying by itself as the event may not be independent (b) that would be rather moot because the accused's chance of having 2 dead babies was 1.
Putting the correct numbers in and turning the handle produces a chance of guilt of about 1%.
What was most shocking was that, given the elementary error in the application of statistics, no-one called him on it in court.