That's a real problem and a good reason why plea bargaining ought to be outlawed or at least tightly regulated. Ultimately they'll throw the death penalty or an unreasonably long sentence onto the table to scare the defendant into pleading guilty. The fact that we even have such a thing as an Alford Plea is really disturbing.
No, they often times do that. The DA is responsible for representing the district in court, while that's usually in terms of criminal proceedings, they are also permitted to initiate civil proceedings if need be. Whom precisely do you think it is that deals with things like civil commitment proceedings?
Unlikely, that's going to be a misdemeanor in pretty much any jurisdiction. Which means less than 1 year in jail, not even prison. And probably less than that as you'd get a third of that off for good behavior and I doubt that they would sentence a person for the maximum amount that's permissible as a misdemeanor.
Now, if we're talking about grand theft, or theft where other crimes are committed, that would be different.
But, no, you're not going to be sent to prison for years over a $49 theft.
Yes, but not as absurd as the $150k that they were threatening the people with. $1000 seems to me to be a ridiculously high fee for non-commercial infringement. Now, if they were running a site that was distributing the content, that might be different, but they should really be forced to prove their damages.
The problem is that the people running the legal system are themselves attorneys with little sense of what laypeople really have to put up with. Yes, it might technically be in the fine print of something that we signed, but there's no reason to believe that we understood the terms we were agreeing to. What's more, very, very few people can afford to have an attorney go over every ToS, EULA and such that we're asked to agree to. That alone would likely run into the thousands of dollars every year, assuming that the agreements are straightforward, which they usually aren't.
Until the justice system understands that these aren't real contracts which have been negotiated and agree to with informed consent, it's going to keep up like this. Sure, I signed a contract to get phone service, but it's not like I had other options other than not having a phone at all.
They were, but it was a bit of a trade off. You could just add songs from any computer you wanted to, but the database would have to be reread every time you turned it on, rather than just when you added files and the system itself didn't get the full benefits of using a database.
That being said, considering how crappy Creative's software was, I think much of the advantage in that respect was wasted.
I'm surprised that nobody makes a replacement application. I remember virtually having to buy one for my NJ3 years back because the OEM software was so bad.
I'm curious what sort of drug and alcohol problem people have to rationalize it like that. It's not an either or proposition like some folks around here imply. Since cardiovascular disease accounts for so much misery it makes sense to focus more on that. But it does not imply that we shouldn't be looking at ways of reducing traffic fatalities.
Personally, I think they should start designing streets with pedestrians in mind and actually take the car keys away from people that are caught for DUI before we start lowering limits any further. It doesn't matter how low the limits are if people aren't being prevented from driving while still under probation for the previous incident.
And that's why we have prisons and a system of courts to try those that decide to break the law. Yes, you're not going to catch everybody, but it does not follow that because you can't catch everybody that it means we should do nothing.
Same goes with firearms, yes we can't catch everybody or prevent every gun crime, but that's no excuse to not know who has these weapons and limit them to something reasonable.
You make it sound like we don't know that levels of alcohol in the system decrease the reaction time and such as they get higher and higher.
The question is at what point does that become substantial enough to justify banning.
Personally, I'd like to see them handing out stiffer sentences and taking away driving privileges from people who are caught with DUIs before we talk about lowering the limit. There's little or no point in lowering the limit if we're not going to take convictions seriously once somebody has been busted breaking the law.
If it's a tax issue then DHS wouldn't likely be involved. That would likely be the IRS or DoJ, because anything that's likely to violate state tax laws is probably also going to violate federal tax laws as well. Most likely it would be people hiding taxable income.
DHS would probably be involved because there's money being sent into and out of the country without it being properly reported to customs. ICE itself being a part of the DHS these days.
Not really, in the US we have the USD because prior to that there was an ad hoc system of state currencies and there was nobody in charge of managing it or deciding what was and wasn't acceptable as a form of payment.
As much as I loathe and despise the Federal Reserve, the current still better than having random people creating currency which may or may not be usable next month. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USD#History
Actually silver is used far more often than you might think. Nearly 100% of all the silver mined in any given year is actually used. Some of it is used for jewelry and coinage, but a huge amount of it is used in industrial applications.
Not that I'm suggesting that we back the currency with it, that's a good reason not to back the currency with it as nearly all of it is already being used.
Like Blackraven said, 40.1% can prevent legislation from being enacted.
If you're too lazy and or stupid to understand that, then I'm clearly wasting my time. BTW, AFAIK the GOP is using the filibuster far more frequently than the Democrats were back during the Bush administration. The Democrats were at least trying to work with Bush, who refused to work with them in most cases, whereas the GOP isn't even pretending like they're trying to work with the Democrats now.
No, it means that 40.1% can run roughshod over the 59.9%. One of the features of Democracy is that sometimes the 50%+1 get their say over the 50%-1, and yes that does suck when things are that divided, but that's how the system is designed to work.
Ultimately, in a majority wins system you get the majority getting to win sometimes even when it's not the best idea out there.
Well, how long did it take for the US to recover after the Great Depression? And I don't recall the opposition party deliberately sabotaging the efforts to fix things.
And the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a few months between when Al Franken was finally permitted to take his seat after the specious challenge in courts by Coleman and when Sen. Kennedy passed away and was replaced by a Republican.
Even during that period it was dicey as the Blue Dog Coalition was often times selling them out on social issues.
And progressives don't believe in a centrally managed economy. We believe in a country that's run to the benefit of the people and progressing to a higher state. Which means that people have the resources to succeed if they're willing to put in the effort and that people are not permitted to become dead wood by hoarding the wealth of the nation.
It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant some people are about this subject. Progressives just want people to get their fair share of things and to improve the quality of life for everybody. Time and time again, it's the progressives that raise the bar and change their views as times change.
Around here if you've got the scores for entry in the local community college during your junior year, the state will pay for you to take a couple years at the university. If you select your courses correctly, you can just about have your associate's by the time you're ready to graduate high school.
And considering that fully half of all students find high school to be too easy anyways, it's a good idea to take them up on the offer if available.
Well, to be fair, if you're a programmer, then you should know how to program and if you're asking programmers to program something for you, then you really ought to have at least some familiarity with the process. Makes it a lot easier to negotiate the features and get work done smoothly.
For pretty much everybody else, don't waste your time and energy unless programming is of genuine interest to you.
There's that. But, the way the schools I went to worked, if you weren't ahead by age 7, you wouldn't get the resources that they allocated to the smart kids. Which meant that while you might be intellectually superior and harder working, you faced an uphill battle because the resources being provided were not as good.
It also meant that you probably had relatively well off parents as you were getting plenty to eat and probably were being taught well before you entered school.
Studies like this are ultimately pretty disgusting because on the surface they seem so reasonable, but fail miserably to deal with all of the important factors. Ultimately, a relatively minor talent at an early age can turn into a significant difference later on, it's not because of the talent, it's because after years of encouragement you get better opportunities than what somebody slightly less talented would have gotten.
That's true. However, organizations with those kinds of names are likely to be engaged in political activity which should render them ineligible for tax exempt status.
The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it. It means that the IRS needs to do a better job of enforcing the code.
There do appear to be some abuses of power here, but keeping an eye on organizations likely to be engaged in political activity isn't wrong.
I own something like that and rarely use it. But, it's a viable option for those that own devices without the slot. I think one drive for the entire household is likely enough.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a real problem and a good reason why plea bargaining ought to be outlawed or at least tightly regulated. Ultimately they'll throw the death penalty or an unreasonably long sentence onto the table to scare the defendant into pleading guilty. The fact that we even have such a thing as an Alford Plea is really disturbing.
No, they often times do that. The DA is responsible for representing the district in court, while that's usually in terms of criminal proceedings, they are also permitted to initiate civil proceedings if need be. Whom precisely do you think it is that deals with things like civil commitment proceedings?
Unlikely, that's going to be a misdemeanor in pretty much any jurisdiction. Which means less than 1 year in jail, not even prison. And probably less than that as you'd get a third of that off for good behavior and I doubt that they would sentence a person for the maximum amount that's permissible as a misdemeanor.
Now, if we're talking about grand theft, or theft where other crimes are committed, that would be different.
But, no, you're not going to be sent to prison for years over a $49 theft.
Yes, but not as absurd as the $150k that they were threatening the people with. $1000 seems to me to be a ridiculously high fee for non-commercial infringement. Now, if they were running a site that was distributing the content, that might be different, but they should really be forced to prove their damages.
The problem is that the people running the legal system are themselves attorneys with little sense of what laypeople really have to put up with. Yes, it might technically be in the fine print of something that we signed, but there's no reason to believe that we understood the terms we were agreeing to. What's more, very, very few people can afford to have an attorney go over every ToS, EULA and such that we're asked to agree to. That alone would likely run into the thousands of dollars every year, assuming that the agreements are straightforward, which they usually aren't.
Until the justice system understands that these aren't real contracts which have been negotiated and agree to with informed consent, it's going to keep up like this. Sure, I signed a contract to get phone service, but it's not like I had other options other than not having a phone at all.
They were, but it was a bit of a trade off. You could just add songs from any computer you wanted to, but the database would have to be reread every time you turned it on, rather than just when you added files and the system itself didn't get the full benefits of using a database.
That being said, considering how crappy Creative's software was, I think much of the advantage in that respect was wasted.
I'm surprised that nobody makes a replacement application. I remember virtually having to buy one for my NJ3 years back because the OEM software was so bad.
I'm curious what sort of drug and alcohol problem people have to rationalize it like that. It's not an either or proposition like some folks around here imply. Since cardiovascular disease accounts for so much misery it makes sense to focus more on that. But it does not imply that we shouldn't be looking at ways of reducing traffic fatalities.
Personally, I think they should start designing streets with pedestrians in mind and actually take the car keys away from people that are caught for DUI before we start lowering limits any further. It doesn't matter how low the limits are if people aren't being prevented from driving while still under probation for the previous incident.
And that's why we have prisons and a system of courts to try those that decide to break the law. Yes, you're not going to catch everybody, but it does not follow that because you can't catch everybody that it means we should do nothing.
Same goes with firearms, yes we can't catch everybody or prevent every gun crime, but that's no excuse to not know who has these weapons and limit them to something reasonable.
You make it sound like we don't know that levels of alcohol in the system decrease the reaction time and such as they get higher and higher.
The question is at what point does that become substantial enough to justify banning.
Personally, I'd like to see them handing out stiffer sentences and taking away driving privileges from people who are caught with DUIs before we talk about lowering the limit. There's little or no point in lowering the limit if we're not going to take convictions seriously once somebody has been busted breaking the law.
Well, why shouldn't they? It's not like BTC aren't already being exploited by pump and dump con artists.
If it's a tax issue then DHS wouldn't likely be involved. That would likely be the IRS or DoJ, because anything that's likely to violate state tax laws is probably also going to violate federal tax laws as well. Most likely it would be people hiding taxable income.
DHS would probably be involved because there's money being sent into and out of the country without it being properly reported to customs. ICE itself being a part of the DHS these days.
Not really, in the US we have the USD because prior to that there was an ad hoc system of state currencies and there was nobody in charge of managing it or deciding what was and wasn't acceptable as a form of payment.
As much as I loathe and despise the Federal Reserve, the current still better than having random people creating currency which may or may not be usable next month. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USD#History
Actually silver is used far more often than you might think. Nearly 100% of all the silver mined in any given year is actually used. Some of it is used for jewelry and coinage, but a huge amount of it is used in industrial applications.
Not that I'm suggesting that we back the currency with it, that's a good reason not to back the currency with it as nearly all of it is already being used.
Like Blackraven said, 40.1% can prevent legislation from being enacted.
If you're too lazy and or stupid to understand that, then I'm clearly wasting my time. BTW, AFAIK the GOP is using the filibuster far more frequently than the Democrats were back during the Bush administration. The Democrats were at least trying to work with Bush, who refused to work with them in most cases, whereas the GOP isn't even pretending like they're trying to work with the Democrats now.
There are no contradictions in there. And I can't help but notice that you couldn't find any either, as you failed to point out any contradictions.
No, it means that 40.1% can run roughshod over the 59.9%. One of the features of Democracy is that sometimes the 50%+1 get their say over the 50%-1, and yes that does suck when things are that divided, but that's how the system is designed to work.
Ultimately, in a majority wins system you get the majority getting to win sometimes even when it's not the best idea out there.
Well, how long did it take for the US to recover after the Great Depression? And I don't recall the opposition party deliberately sabotaging the efforts to fix things.
And the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a few months between when Al Franken was finally permitted to take his seat after the specious challenge in courts by Coleman and when Sen. Kennedy passed away and was replaced by a Republican.
Even during that period it was dicey as the Blue Dog Coalition was often times selling them out on social issues.
Fascists aren't progressives.
And progressives don't believe in a centrally managed economy. We believe in a country that's run to the benefit of the people and progressing to a higher state. Which means that people have the resources to succeed if they're willing to put in the effort and that people are not permitted to become dead wood by hoarding the wealth of the nation.
It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant some people are about this subject. Progressives just want people to get their fair share of things and to improve the quality of life for everybody. Time and time again, it's the progressives that raise the bar and change their views as times change.
Around here if you've got the scores for entry in the local community college during your junior year, the state will pay for you to take a couple years at the university. If you select your courses correctly, you can just about have your associate's by the time you're ready to graduate high school.
And considering that fully half of all students find high school to be too easy anyways, it's a good idea to take them up on the offer if available.
Well, to be fair, if you're a programmer, then you should know how to program and if you're asking programmers to program something for you, then you really ought to have at least some familiarity with the process. Makes it a lot easier to negotiate the features and get work done smoothly.
For pretty much everybody else, don't waste your time and energy unless programming is of genuine interest to you.
You did, so did Bill Gates, but you'd have to be an idiot to suggest that it's the norm for people that don't do well in college and do well anyways.
There's that. But, the way the schools I went to worked, if you weren't ahead by age 7, you wouldn't get the resources that they allocated to the smart kids. Which meant that while you might be intellectually superior and harder working, you faced an uphill battle because the resources being provided were not as good.
It also meant that you probably had relatively well off parents as you were getting plenty to eat and probably were being taught well before you entered school.
Studies like this are ultimately pretty disgusting because on the surface they seem so reasonable, but fail miserably to deal with all of the important factors. Ultimately, a relatively minor talent at an early age can turn into a significant difference later on, it's not because of the talent, it's because after years of encouragement you get better opportunities than what somebody slightly less talented would have gotten.
That's true. However, organizations with those kinds of names are likely to be engaged in political activity which should render them ineligible for tax exempt status.
The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it. It means that the IRS needs to do a better job of enforcing the code.
There do appear to be some abuses of power here, but keeping an eye on organizations likely to be engaged in political activity isn't wrong.
I own something like that and rarely use it. But, it's a viable option for those that own devices without the slot. I think one drive for the entire household is likely enough.