I wanted to add that the WHOLE POINT of trial by jury (especially a jury of your PEERS, which is not really a meaningful social category anymore) is to allow for jury nullification and to encourage justice.
I am an American and have never heard of a jury striking down a law, and have never heard such a thing called "nullification."
That is because a jury cannot actually strike down a law. Jury nullification means something rather different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification . In summary, jury nullification is when a jury refuses to convict a guilty party for whatever reason (he's good looking, they fear for their lives, they consider the law unjust, etc.).
The reason you've never heard of it is because your government has waged a steady war against it for the last century (despite it's being repeatedly validated as a fundamental feature of the legal system for the last 400 years back to the trial of the William Penn jurors in England). The government's war against jury nullification dates to prohibition when it was common for juries to refuse to convict their drinking buddies. In the intervening years the supreme court has ruled on the matter several times, each time confirming the right of the jury to rule however they please for whatever reason, but also affirming the government's right to lie to the jury and tell the jury they cannot do that. This is why you'll occasionally hear jurors say in interviews something along the lines of 'we didn't want to convict him, but the judge said we had to follow the letter of the law.' No, they didn't have to. They never have.
And as above, no that is not a simulation of Apophis striking earth. Not even close. Stop it. If I had mod points, you'd get a -1 Microsoft Sales Rep Scare Tactics.
The one in 250,000 are the odds that our measurements of the asteroid's path are as far off as they would have to be for it to hit us. That is what it means when they say a 1 in 250,000 chance of impact.
Given that Catholics wrote the Bible in the first place, and decided which texts were canonical and which were not, I'd say it's been written to suit them from Day 1. That you're dumb enough to think the day 1 version is any better than the day 584000 version is your problem.
I'm a Catholic, and I'm aware of all of that. And it doesn't contradict a damn thing he said (it may lay the grounds for your implied claim that the whole structure of the catholic church is baloney, but not a word of what you posted directly contradicts a word of what he posted).
It was common in egypt, for one. Cleopatra, in adition to Julius Caesar's, bore the children of 2 of her brothers, to name just one famous exemple.
And it's a lousy example, because it WAS NOT common in ancient egypt, or anywhere else in the Mediterranean, or anywhere in the world really. The exception was Royal families (where it was common), but it was not common in the general population.
Most societies have some exceptions to the taboo (and which specific relations are considered incestual can vary quite a bit), but the exceptions are always very limited and the taboo is always there.
You have a limited understanding of the variety of Latin declension.
Guilty as charged (I've had one quarter of it, second quarter starts in Jan).
My reference grammar has none of those forms, but it's a first year text, so it's not terribly remarkable that it lacks declensions for greek loan words (the few that show up in Ovid are explained in footnotes in my text, rather than being addressed in the reference).
My point was more about the absurdity of dfetter's cheap shot at his parent post via an equally absurd post.
No, 'those neighbours,' didn't own that land. It was part of the Ottoman Empire, then a British Territory, then the checkerboard of made up countries that exist there now (i.e. every one of them is an artifact of British colonial policy, and no more a 'real' country than Israel is).
Octopi would be correct if octopus was a Latin word (2nd declension, also octopora, octopus for 3rd or 4th declension--but it isn't any of those either), which makes it as incorrect as Octopodes, but no worse.
Or you could realize that military research into communications (where do you think this newfangled internet came from?), materials, and medicine (especially trauma treatment) has benefited the general public quite a bit in the last fifty years.
What I want to know is how is the fact that you guessed supposed to make your erroneous spouting better?
When you spout misinformation, which is a serious problem on the internet (i'm looking at you conspiracy theorists), the fact that you guessed doesn't absolve you, since 15 seconds effort on your part would have meant 1 less piece of misinformation forever preserved.
I propose that you sir are an internet asshole (not that this particular piece of misinformation means a goddamn thing, since everyone who reads/. knew you were wrong, but THINK OF THE KITTENS!)
Point is, misinformation is a problem here, and being glib about the fact that you're a lazy trollop makes it worse, not better.
I'm willing to make that concession, but only if you get you make substituting a glottal stop for post-vowel ts the RP pronunciation. It will make our comedians lives easier.
Slashdot Mirror
I wanted to add that the WHOLE POINT of trial by jury (especially a jury of your PEERS, which is not really a meaningful social category anymore) is to allow for jury nullification and to encourage justice.
I am an American and have never heard of a jury striking down a law, and have never heard such a thing called "nullification."
That is because a jury cannot actually strike down a law. Jury nullification means something rather different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification . In summary, jury nullification is when a jury refuses to convict a guilty party for whatever reason (he's good looking, they fear for their lives, they consider the law unjust, etc.).
The reason you've never heard of it is because your government has waged a steady war against it for the last century (despite it's being repeatedly validated as a fundamental feature of the legal system for the last 400 years back to the trial of the William Penn jurors in England). The government's war against jury nullification dates to prohibition when it was common for juries to refuse to convict their drinking buddies. In the intervening years the supreme court has ruled on the matter several times, each time confirming the right of the jury to rule however they please for whatever reason, but also affirming the government's right to lie to the jury and tell the jury they cannot do that. This is why you'll occasionally hear jurors say in interviews something along the lines of 'we didn't want to convict him, but the judge said we had to follow the letter of the law.' No, they didn't have to. They never have.
Peddling cocaine.
Show's been over for a while, this asteroid has been named Apophis for several years--those jokes are thoroughly played out by now.
And as above, no that is not a simulation of Apophis striking earth. Not even close. Stop it. If I had mod points, you'd get a -1 Microsoft Sales Rep Scare Tactics.
What? The GP was a joke, you're just ignorant.
The one in 250,000 are the odds that our measurements of the asteroid's path are as far off as they would have to be for it to hit us. That is what it means when they say a 1 in 250,000 chance of impact.
Given that Catholics wrote the Bible in the first place, and decided which texts were canonical and which were not, I'd say it's been written to suit them from Day 1. That you're dumb enough to think the day 1 version is any better than the day 584000 version is your problem.
I'm a Catholic, and I'm aware of all of that. And it doesn't contradict a damn thing he said (it may lay the grounds for your implied claim that the whole structure of the catholic church is baloney, but not a word of what you posted directly contradicts a word of what he posted).
Depends on how much of Dr Who fan you are.
Probably because that's what he was referring to? Hence, it's what you were supposed to think of? This wasn't a real question was it?
It was common in egypt, for one. Cleopatra, in adition to Julius Caesar's, bore the children of 2 of her brothers, to name just one famous exemple.
And it's a lousy example, because it WAS NOT common in ancient egypt, or anywhere else in the Mediterranean, or anywhere in the world really. The exception was Royal families (where it was common), but it was not common in the general population.
Most societies have some exceptions to the taboo (and which specific relations are considered incestual can vary quite a bit), but the exceptions are always very limited and the taboo is always there.
You have a limited understanding of the variety of Latin declension.
Guilty as charged (I've had one quarter of it, second quarter starts in Jan).
My reference grammar has none of those forms, but it's a first year text, so it's not terribly remarkable that it lacks declensions for greek loan words (the few that show up in Ovid are explained in footnotes in my text, rather than being addressed in the reference).
My point was more about the absurdity of dfetter's cheap shot at his parent post via an equally absurd post.
It's not like they do it on a table in a security booth. They have bomb pits for this purpose.
No, 'those neighbours,' didn't own that land. It was part of the Ottoman Empire, then a British Territory, then the checkerboard of made up countries that exist there now (i.e. every one of them is an artifact of British colonial policy, and no more a 'real' country than Israel is).
Octopi would be correct if octopus was a Latin word (2nd declension, also octopora, octopus for 3rd or 4th declension--but it isn't any of those either), which makes it as incorrect as Octopodes, but no worse.
Oh look, now I'm as pretentious as you.
Sure. If you like straw men.
Or you could realize that military research into communications (where do you think this newfangled internet came from?), materials, and medicine (especially trauma treatment) has benefited the general public quite a bit in the last fifty years.
Less than you'd think. It's hard to find shaving cream in Tora Bora.
Turn in your geek card, you're fired. How do you not recognize Philipp K. Dick?
I've always wondered what Hyperthreading counts as.
Marketing bullshit.
What I want to know is how is the fact that you guessed supposed to make your erroneous spouting better?
When you spout misinformation, which is a serious problem on the internet (i'm looking at you conspiracy theorists), the fact that you guessed doesn't absolve you, since 15 seconds effort on your part would have meant 1 less piece of misinformation forever preserved.
I propose that you sir are an internet asshole (not that this particular piece of misinformation means a goddamn thing, since everyone who reads /. knew you were wrong, but THINK OF THE KITTENS!)
Point is, misinformation is a problem here, and being glib about the fact that you're a lazy trollop makes it worse, not better.
I'm willing to make that concession, but only if you get you make substituting a glottal stop for post-vowel ts the RP pronunciation. It will make our comedians lives easier.
I tried that once and I just wound up back on slashdot.
You haven't met some of the women I have then....*shudder*
How about you start using metric measurements in return? :)
Right after you start seeing a dentist twice a year.
Cuban did just offer them a million dollars...