Well, yea, they do believe that 71 virgin thing. But do they really? I mean, most suicide bombers are poor fellas, with little/nothing to lose. When was the last time you've seen a high ranking Ayatollah/Iranian Office Holder pull the string on the 40kg of C4 under his suit and blow himself up?
When their OWN skin is involved, they'd rather not run the risk of being stood up by the 2 angels that are supposed to descend from heaven upon their martyrdom's completion.:-)
Seconded. That's why I also agree with the poster that questioned Microsoft's non-evildoing motives.
They actually PREFER people to use pirated windows software and not pay them than they use GNU/Linux. Cause in the former they lose money but maintain their choke on the market, in the latter they get nada.
So there you go, they crack down on the small time unlicensed MS software vendors to maintain the appearance of a company that is oh-so-deeply-troubled that people are using their OS without paying for it. Ppl will still get XP or Vista from the neighbor/friend/relative. Status quo.:)
Terrorist carrying a hidden razor and shaped charge:
- "Oh Officer, I forgot my ID, Sir. Of course I'll be cooperative, I am an upstanding citizen with no reason to be disrespectful to authority.". Boards plane. Maims, murders, yadayadayada.
Upstanding citizen:
- "I don't have to show ID to board a plane. I'm a free man with inalienable constitutional rights." Tasered. Told to put your hands behind back, can't because of tasering, tasered again harder. Handcuffed. Trialed for treason, hung, yadayadayada.
That's not the point. With open source you have the possibility of checking the source for things you don't agree with. If you're not a programmer you can hire one.
With proprietary software you don't even have that.
From his diagrams, the device is much too simplistic to work. Russians used a similar setup. Plasma does not interact with just the outside, it interacts with itself. And that's the problem that existed since the 60s.
Ever heard of Occam's razor, or AKA 'Keep it simple stupid!' ?
FRAUD? It has been known for more than 40 years, maybe much more, that putting Hydrogen or Deuterium into Platinum or Palladium causes some interesting effects. Yea. Like cold fusion.:)
Well, the 88 judge was lying to the jury because in his head he was probably thinking that since he's not obligated by law to inform them that they have the power to decide guilt or not guilt, he could very well just lie about it if asked. Wrong in my opinion, but I'm not a US Federal Judge.
About the 97 case: it's funny that 25 years later the Judge completely ignored earlier jurisprudence on the matter, and cites the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as if they could overturn the us bill of rights.
Besides, how are you ever going to get evidence that the jurors intent to nullify the law? Mind-reading? Eavesdropping on deliberation? Torture? Or when the first unexpected 'not guilty' veredict is read, the jury can be replaced since they're obviously intent on nullifying the law?
I disagree with your last line, I think it's less complicated than you make it to be. Taking a quick look in your past century of history, your government has been growing bigger, more powerful and more authoritarian. What makes you think it will arbitrarily stop at a certain point?
It was a stimulating discussion though, thanks for your arguments.
No,no,no,no, if you think 'only the judge is allowed to interpret the law' then you don't live in a Constitutional lawful state. You don't live in Syria by any chance, do ya?;-)
It's the jury's prerrogative to ignore the judge's instructions on the interpretation of the law
some links where I check up on my sedicious way of thinking before irresponsibly posting:
Well, if you serve as juror not knowing the its your prerrogative to ignore the instructions of the judge then you are being, at the very least, a very irresponsible citizen.
If the judge can in so much an inch directly direct the jury's behavior then you really need no jury.
quoting from 'http://www.ccguide.org.uk/jury.php':
' The jury's power to reject bad law continues to be recognised, as for example, in 1972 when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that: the jury has an "unreviewable and irreversible power to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge." '
Wait a second, am I wrong or does each side present its case to the JURY, not the Judge, who then proceeds to decide your culpability?? If not then I'm completely ignorant...:-/
Now, if you are prevented from citing the law as your defense ( instructing, or letting the jury see your side of things ) what are you going to base your defense on? Bananas? ATM machines? Deodorant?
So the prosecution can instruct the jury ( presenting evidence against you ), and the Judge can instruct the jury, but you can't.
Just like that old Neuromancer PC game computer court, except in real life.
I live in Brazil, we just got upgraded to BBB- investment grade, the stock has been shooting upwards, the miserable people are getting a small government grant as incentive to keep their children in school.
Compare that to our dictatorship and well, it really doesn't compare. Trust me, things may not be perfect, or even good, but we're better off. Interventionism sucks. Democracy sucks too, but everything else sucks even worse.:-|
He is in jail not because he was told to shut up. He's in jail because the jury was improperly instructed. There have been many other cases like his where the question at hand (that there is no law creating the present state of the income tax) was brought up. The problem is that the government has decided that the improper instruction of the jury is proper. So appeals canâ(TM)t work so long as everyone in the bureaucratic chain actually agrees on something. Furthermore, this is not something that our Congressmen have power over, and I guarantee that they are not going to pass a new law banning income tax no matter how many people bitch. The most you could hope for is a real law creating the income tax.
ya ya, but half the reason the jury was improperly instructed is that the defendant couldn't present his defense ( to the jury ) because he was told to shut up, so he is in jail because he was told to shut up; q.e.d.
That's serious malarkey there. Makes me head spin.
Slashdot Mirror
Vista is a slow, crawly, disgusting vomited animal. And people are buying that slow crap from microsoft as it's the second coming of christ.
Well, yea, they do believe that 71 virgin thing. But do they really? I mean, most suicide bombers are poor fellas, with little/nothing to lose. When was the last time you've seen a high ranking Ayatollah/Iranian Office Holder pull the string on the 40kg of C4 under his suit and blow himself up?
:-)
When their OWN skin is involved, they'd rather not run the risk of being stood up by the 2 angels that are supposed to descend from heaven upon their martyrdom's completion.
Seconded. That's why I also agree with the poster that questioned Microsoft's non-evildoing motives.
:)
They actually PREFER people to use pirated windows software and not pay them than they use GNU/Linux. Cause in the former they lose money but maintain their choke on the market, in the latter they get nada.
So there you go, they crack down on the small time unlicensed MS software vendors to maintain the appearance of a company that is oh-so-deeply-troubled that people are using their OS without paying for it. Ppl will still get XP or Vista from the neighbor/friend/relative. Status quo.
The American citizen.
Terrorist carrying a hidden razor and shaped charge:
- "Oh Officer, I forgot my ID, Sir. Of course I'll be cooperative, I am an upstanding citizen with no reason to be disrespectful to authority.". Boards plane. Maims, murders, yadayadayada.
Upstanding citizen:
- "I don't have to show ID to board a plane. I'm a free man with inalienable constitutional rights." Tasered. Told to put your hands behind back, can't because of tasering, tasered again harder. Handcuffed. Trialed for treason, hung, yadayadayada.
well, I personally like the idea of not dying instantly if something goes wrong with a stupid hull or life support system.
:)
call me sissy.
correction, including distribution. :)
That's not the point. With open source you have the possibility of checking the source for things you don't agree with. If you're not a programmer you can hire one.
With proprietary software you don't even have that.
A post that doesn't get the difference between 'free as in freedom' and 'free as in beer' gets modded up Insightful? Please...
Critically like, 'oh, he's not a science, he's only got a BA in Physics'?
What more do you want? Governmental appointment?
He's working on something, getting funding and trying to make it work. THAT'S a scientist. Even if he had no BA, mind you.
Unfortunately, he's dead.
Ever heard of Occam's razor, or AKA 'Keep it simple stupid!' ?
Standard creativity test? Hum... ok....
Well, the 88 judge was lying to the jury because in his head he was probably thinking that since he's not obligated by law to inform them that they have the power to decide guilt or not guilt, he could very well just lie about it if asked. Wrong in my opinion, but I'm not a US Federal Judge.
About the 97 case: it's funny that 25 years later the Judge completely ignored earlier jurisprudence on the matter, and cites the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as if they could overturn the us bill of rights.
Besides, how are you ever going to get evidence that the jurors intent to nullify the law? Mind-reading? Eavesdropping on deliberation? Torture? Or when the first unexpected 'not guilty' veredict is read, the jury can be replaced since they're obviously intent on nullifying the law?
I disagree with your last line, I think it's less complicated than you make it to be. Taking a quick look in your past century of history, your government has been growing bigger, more powerful and more authoritarian. What makes you think it will arbitrarily stop at a certain point?
It was a stimulating discussion though, thanks for your arguments.
No,no,no,no, if you think 'only the judge is allowed to interpret the law' then you don't live in a Constitutional lawful state. You don't live in Syria by any chance, do ya? ;-)
It's the jury's prerrogative to ignore the judge's instructions on the interpretation of the law
some links where I check up on my sedicious way of thinking before irresponsibly posting:
http://www.caught.net/juror.htm
http://www.fija.org/
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/tmkeck/Cases/USvDougherty1972.htm ( US vs Dougherty 1972, Court of Appeals )
Lol, and I had no idea I pulled that quote from the "Cannabis Campaigners' On Line Guide".
;-)
Go pot people!
Well, if you serve as juror not knowing the its your prerrogative to ignore the instructions of the judge then you are being, at the very least, a very irresponsible citizen.
:
If the judge can in so much an inch directly direct the jury's behavior then you really need no jury.
quoting from 'http://www.ccguide.org.uk/jury.php'
' The jury's power to reject bad law continues to be recognised, as for example, in 1972 when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that: the jury has an "unreviewable and irreversible power to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge." '
Wait a second, am I wrong or does each side present its case to the JURY, not the Judge, who then proceeds to decide your culpability?? If not then I'm completely ignorant... :-/
Now, if you are prevented from citing the law as your defense ( instructing, or letting the jury see your side of things ) what are you going to base your defense on? Bananas? ATM machines? Deodorant?
So the prosecution can instruct the jury ( presenting evidence against you ), and the Judge can instruct the jury, but you can't.
Just like that old Neuromancer PC game computer court, except in real life.
by all means, don't buy it. look it up yourself.
Wow, thanks for the detailed insight. I stand thoroughly corrected. :)
Funny, by your own argument, their people must be treated by their own 'disfunctional culture's' standards of behaviour.
:-)
The arrogance, o lord.
I live in Brazil, we just got upgraded to BBB- investment grade, the stock has been shooting upwards, the miserable people are getting a small government grant as incentive to keep their children in school. Compare that to our dictatorship and well, it really doesn't compare. Trust me, things may not be perfect, or even good, but we're better off. Interventionism sucks. Democracy sucks too, but everything else sucks even worse. :-|
I meant FTAA not ALCA, sorry bout that. :-)
I agree, away with NAFTA, ALCA, the WTO, Mercosul and protectionism. :-)
He is in jail not because he was told to shut up. He's in jail because the jury was improperly instructed. There have been many other cases like his where the question at hand (that there is no law creating the present state of the income tax) was brought up. The problem is that the government has decided that the improper instruction of the jury is proper. So appeals canâ(TM)t work so long as everyone in the bureaucratic chain actually agrees on something. Furthermore, this is not something that our Congressmen have power over, and I guarantee that they are not going to pass a new law banning income tax no matter how many people bitch. The most you could hope for is a real law creating the income tax.
ya ya, but half the reason the jury was improperly instructed is that the defendant couldn't present his defense ( to the jury ) because he was told to shut up, so he is in jail because he was told to shut up; q.e.d.
That's serious malarkey there. Makes me head spin.