Pluto+Charon are a double dwarf planet system. On the other hand, I would call Luna (more correctly... The Moon, which is its proper Anglo-Saxon name) a dwarf planet as well.
Except by that definition, then the Earth has not cleared its orbit...
*some might argue it is a double planet system, in which case, I withdraw my snarky comment
Well, if the Earth is a double planet system, then Pluto and Charon even more so would be a double planet system, considering at least that the point of rotation in the Earth-Moon system is located within the Earth, while Pluto-Charon orbits around a point in open space...
Note that I did not mention any of the other planetoids specifically because I only needed on counter example. And "Luna == the Earth's moon" is kind of weird nomenclature for me. (Yes, I do know it's correct, but still.)
We believe that 12 random people simply cannot know the law well enough to give somebody a fair trial.
I can get behind that notion... except the 12 random people are supposed to ensure that the law never gets so complicated that it cannot be explained to a layperson. Specifically, the Common Law system was fraught with judges exceeding their authority and jailing people without good reason, so the USA system invented grand juries and trial by jury. (Notable fact: one was only guaranteed these rights in Federal courts before incorporation of those rights from the 14th amendment.)
Grand juries were intended to ensure that before charges were ever brought against someone that the prosecution had to at least be able to prove to X random laypersons that the defendant committed the crime without anyone arguing against it... I mean, if the prosecution can't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt even when it controls everything the grand jury hears, it certainly doesn't deserve to go to trial. (US law allows for summary judgements in civil cases when taking everything a side has argued as true results in them still being in the wrong.)
Anyways, I'm down for the Civil Law tradition, with judges trained separately from lawyers, and issued resolved in reasonable discussion, rather than in an adversarial system. In the adversarial system, it's far too easy for one side, or the prosecution/defense to dump money into getting better results...
Everything orbits the Earth. Heliocentrism is a fraud, brought to use by the same "scientists" as evolution, global warming, and that dubious round-earth theory.:p
Exactly! Everyone knows that Pluto orbits in an epicycle!
If it was actually posted publicly, NY wouldn't need a warrant, subpoena, or even a lawyer. A 5 year old with a computer could get them the guy's tweet history.
The tweets were deleted, which is why NY needs to have Twitter produce a reproduction of the Tweets.
To what end ? That's hearsay evidence and wouldn't be admissible anyway.
Not all hearsay is inadmissible. In fact, when someone confesses to a crime, or states some fact that would suggest that person's guilt, then hearsay is explicitly allowed. Why? Because it's unlikely that someone would confess to a criminal act falsely, so therefore, there is no question of if the defendant were lying or telling the truth when the statement was spoken.
Sure, the witness may be lying, but that is something that the jury is allowed to evaluate, as they will see the witness and their testimony.
There is also tons of hearsay which is also explicitly admitted, but then you probably didn't read about hearsay, you're just inferring out of the usage from movies and TV... but think about all the times they try and put someone in the cell with a person, and trying and get the person to confess to the crime that they're being held for...
With a warrant, the bank just drills the lock, so the bank can have access as well.
With a warrant both the bank and law enforcement agents are allowed and permitted to violate any and all expectations of privacy. Since the bank has to drill the lock in order to obtain your security box, that makes it clear that they do not have "unfettered", and unrestricted access to the contents. In fact, it would require a clear invasion of privacy in order to break the security of the box. This is only permitted when, a) they have a warrant, and b) you are in serious default of payment, and they have a court order allowing them to seize the property contained within in lieu of payment on the default.
Or, if you like, how about securing an item in their vault. The bank now has unfettered access, but a warrant is still necessary for the government to seize the goods.
The bank is still restricting access to the goods and respecting ones privacy. The equivalent is like a store putting up your documents on a billboard, then when you tell them to take them down, they comply, but the government comes along and wants those details again.
Sure, private communications can still happen between 100 individuals, but clearly and patently private communication cannot happen when someone is posting something publicly...
e right to privacy was forfeit by sharing the material with a third party,
Really? Where is the line drawn?
If I send an email, did I share it with my ISP so it is not private? What about my stock portfolio stored on vanguard.com? Or the pictures of me naked I stored on dropbox.com?
If your email was unencrypted then it was being sent to an individual. The ISP is expected not to read your emails though, so generally, even if email is unencrypted it is accepted that email is similar to verbal communication... namely, privacy is expected, but anyone that you talked to is allowed to share such communication at will... in one-party consent states they can even record it, and even in two-party consent states, IM and emails are known to be regularly recorded, and thus by using such a method of communication you are consenting to that data being recorded. Twitter and facebook posts are regularly divorce proceeding evidence.
Stock portfolio stored on vanguard.com? Subject to the same rules as storing your stock portfolio with a person... namely, if they get a subpoena asking for them to produce your financial records, then they will generally comply.
Pictures of you naked stored on dropbox.com? If it's in your public folder, then there is no argument, it was published publicly and thus subject to no expectation of privacy. If it were maintained in your private area, and dropbox has clear policies that your private data is your private data, then there is an expectation of privacy. Preferably, you should be encrypting the data, so that dropbox company has no access to the data, which would ensure that a warrant is required in order to obtain the information.
Making a bunch of tweets and then deleting them is not a revocation of public publishing... especially when you gave license to dropbox to reproduce and redistribute your tweets at will when you sign the ToS...
"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."[1] Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as evidence in court, unless the defendant testifies.[3] When an out-of-court statement offered as evidence contains another out-of-court statement it is called double hearsay, and both layers of hearsay must be found separately admissible.[4]
And, in fact, it is very common for a witness to testify that the defendant has confessed a criminal act to them.
disorderly conduct by itself, no. but if they suspect the person organized or encouraged the disorderly conduct with unprotected speech (equivalent to yelling fire in a theater) over the twitter medium, then this sounds like a normal investigation.
Under the current standard, yelling fire in a crowded theater (clear and present danger) is not enough to unprotect speech, but rather that it has to incite to immediate lawless behavior. However, organizing a disorderly conduct mob would still qualify... this newer standard came as a result of many pacifists being charged with criminal speech acts when protesting wars.
My tweets are private if I say my tweets are private. If I do not allow non-friends to see them, it's the same as if I were having a private conversation with a friend of mine inside of my house.
And oftentimes your friend can be subpoenaed as to the contents of that communication.
But a bank cannot access your safe deposit box without you. So, they ensure that even when they hold anything for you that they construct a continued expectation of privacy with no right of the bank to violate that right without your consent.
Meanwhile, Twitter can access all your details and Tweets at will, and you grant them rights to redistribute at will... thus dismantling any argument of a right to privacy.
Indeed I can be subpoenaed to produce documents that another has given me, at least in some cases. The right to privacy was forfeit by sharing the material with a third party, and there is no intention that the documents could be used against me for criminal proceedings, so Twitter has no 4th amendment argument, and the third party who owns the document has no expectation of privacy.
That's fine. This is what due process is all about.
But a subpoena is also a part of due process... it's properly a court order compelling testimony of a witness... no, it's not a warrant, but they're not going to Twitter to search and seize, it's a court order demanding that Twitter produce the information requested as it is a necessary testimony to a legal proceeding.
In fact, this is the typical way to request information to obtain information about identity, etc from a 3rd party.
Namely, wtf is going on here, a subpoena is standard proper due process in this case, why is Twitter trying a very likely futile legal theory?... Really, they could only properly quash the subpoena if they can show that the information that they hold is irrelevant to the court proceeding. Demanding a warrant means that law enforcement agents will come physically to their site, and find the information themselves, seizing necessary servers if required in order to search them off site. Would they really want to open themselves up to such an invasive search after the prosecution has submitted and received a proper and valid subpoena in accordance with due process already?
But I didn't use an East Asian word. In fact, I used a well-established word of Germanic origin, with unclear Proto-Indo-European connection.
Your notion that "Greek" is the central language of the Indo-European language tree is a bad example, because in fact, Greek is NOT the root language, and neither was it exclusively borrowed from. Yes, there are a great number of Greek words that have been pushed into English, and even more through Latin, by way of Old French. But in fact, the Germanic language tree exists quite distinct from the Greek language tree, and has a great number of words that developed in parallel and separately from each other.
But if you move to places that were highly developed in their language before the greeks and only really connected liberally after the greek language had solidified, then you'll find that, by definition, you cannot find a greek root to their word.
... let's see, there were the Albanian branch, the Anatolian branch, the Armenian branch, the Balto-Slavic (Baltic and Slavic) branch, the Celtic branch, the Germanic branch, the Indo-Iranian branch, the Italic branch, and the Tocharian branch... all of these were highly developed in their language before the Greeks and were only really connected liberally after the Greek language had solidified... wait, solidified? WTF? Ancient Greek is quite different from Modern Greek, and was part of a Sprachbund with a Baltic language, and a Slavic language, that ended up producing some odd hybrids of the three, with some parallel syntactic formations...
Seriously, are you talking ENTIRELY out of your ass? Because that's the only conclusion I can come to... because absolutely none of it is supported by linguistics.
I also find I get confused about... which language I read it in.
Same happens to me. I've picked up quite a few languages to near-native level, and have thus memorized things at the concept level, and can therefore reproduce the conversation or what I read in either English or German as if I had read/heard it in that language itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Pluto+Charon are a double dwarf planet system. On the other hand, I would call Luna (more correctly... The Moon, which is its proper Anglo-Saxon name) a dwarf planet as well.
Except by that definition, then the Earth has not cleared its orbit...
Titan does not orbit the sun directly...
Neither does "Luna"... *
*some might argue it is a double planet system, in which case, I withdraw my snarky comment
Well, if the Earth is a double planet system, then Pluto and Charon even more so would be a double planet system, considering at least that the point of rotation in the Earth-Moon system is located within the Earth, while Pluto-Charon orbits around a point in open space...
Note that I did not mention any of the other planetoids specifically because I only needed on counter example. And "Luna == the Earth's moon" is kind of weird nomenclature for me. (Yes, I do know it's correct, but still.)
We believe that 12 random people simply cannot know the law well enough to give somebody a fair trial.
I can get behind that notion... except the 12 random people are supposed to ensure that the law never gets so complicated that it cannot be explained to a layperson. Specifically, the Common Law system was fraught with judges exceeding their authority and jailing people without good reason, so the USA system invented grand juries and trial by jury. (Notable fact: one was only guaranteed these rights in Federal courts before incorporation of those rights from the 14th amendment.)
Grand juries were intended to ensure that before charges were ever brought against someone that the prosecution had to at least be able to prove to X random laypersons that the defendant committed the crime without anyone arguing against it... I mean, if the prosecution can't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt even when it controls everything the grand jury hears, it certainly doesn't deserve to go to trial. (US law allows for summary judgements in civil cases when taking everything a side has argued as true results in them still being in the wrong.)
Anyways, I'm down for the Civil Law tradition, with judges trained separately from lawyers, and issued resolved in reasonable discussion, rather than in an adversarial system. In the adversarial system, it's far too easy for one side, or the prosecution/defense to dump money into getting better results...
Wait, Pluto orbits the Earth now?
Everything orbits the Earth. Heliocentrism is a fraud, brought to use by the same "scientists" as evolution, global warming, and that dubious round-earth theory. :p
Exactly! Everyone knows that Pluto orbits in an epicycle!
Titan does not orbit the sun directly...
i don't have to subscribe to view a public billboard.
You also don't have to subscribe to read a tweet either... just to be notified of a tweet or follow a tweet source.
If it was actually posted publicly, NY wouldn't need a warrant, subpoena, or even a lawyer. A 5 year old with a computer could get them the guy's tweet history.
The tweets were deleted, which is why NY needs to have Twitter produce a reproduction of the Tweets.
To what end ? That's hearsay evidence and wouldn't be admissible anyway.
Not all hearsay is inadmissible. In fact, when someone confesses to a crime, or states some fact that would suggest that person's guilt, then hearsay is explicitly allowed. Why? Because it's unlikely that someone would confess to a criminal act falsely, so therefore, there is no question of if the defendant were lying or telling the truth when the statement was spoken.
Sure, the witness may be lying, but that is something that the jury is allowed to evaluate, as they will see the witness and their testimony.
There is also tons of hearsay which is also explicitly admitted, but then you probably didn't read about hearsay, you're just inferring out of the usage from movies and TV... but think about all the times they try and put someone in the cell with a person, and trying and get the person to confess to the crime that they're being held for...
With a warrant, the bank just drills the lock, so the bank can have access as well.
With a warrant both the bank and law enforcement agents are allowed and permitted to violate any and all expectations of privacy. Since the bank has to drill the lock in order to obtain your security box, that makes it clear that they do not have "unfettered", and unrestricted access to the contents. In fact, it would require a clear invasion of privacy in order to break the security of the box. This is only permitted when, a) they have a warrant, and b) you are in serious default of payment, and they have a court order allowing them to seize the property contained within in lieu of payment on the default.
Or, if you like, how about securing an item in their vault. The bank now has unfettered access, but a warrant is still necessary for the government to seize the goods.
The bank is still restricting access to the goods and respecting ones privacy. The equivalent is like a store putting up your documents on a billboard, then when you tell them to take them down, they comply, but the government comes along and wants those details again.
Sure, private communications can still happen between 100 individuals, but clearly and patently private communication cannot happen when someone is posting something publicly...
e right to privacy was forfeit by sharing the material with a third party,
Really? Where is the line drawn?
If I send an email, did I share it with my ISP so it is not private? What about my stock portfolio stored on vanguard.com? Or the pictures of me naked I stored on dropbox.com?
If your email was unencrypted then it was being sent to an individual. The ISP is expected not to read your emails though, so generally, even if email is unencrypted it is accepted that email is similar to verbal communication... namely, privacy is expected, but anyone that you talked to is allowed to share such communication at will... in one-party consent states they can even record it, and even in two-party consent states, IM and emails are known to be regularly recorded, and thus by using such a method of communication you are consenting to that data being recorded. Twitter and facebook posts are regularly divorce proceeding evidence.
Stock portfolio stored on vanguard.com? Subject to the same rules as storing your stock portfolio with a person... namely, if they get a subpoena asking for them to produce your financial records, then they will generally comply.
Pictures of you naked stored on dropbox.com? If it's in your public folder, then there is no argument, it was published publicly and thus subject to no expectation of privacy. If it were maintained in your private area, and dropbox has clear policies that your private data is your private data, then there is an expectation of privacy. Preferably, you should be encrypting the data, so that dropbox company has no access to the data, which would ensure that a warrant is required in order to obtain the information.
Making a bunch of tweets and then deleting them is not a revocation of public publishing... especially when you gave license to dropbox to reproduce and redistribute your tweets at will when you sign the ToS...
As is contesting one. Civilized men settle their differences in courts of law.
Indeed, however, I suspect this situation to be unlikely in Twitters favor.
Trial by observing the ritual combat of lawyers beats the hell out of the alternative.
I agree.
And any sane lawyer in the world can have that testimony thrown out as here-say
It's "hearsay", and you should probably look up what hearsay is rather than go off of personal assumptions or movies/television.
Relevant part of US hearsay rules from Wikipedia:
"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."[1] Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as evidence in court, unless the defendant testifies.[3] When an out-of-court statement offered as evidence contains another out-of-court statement it is called double hearsay, and both layers of hearsay must be found separately admissible.[4]
And, in fact, it is very common for a witness to testify that the defendant has confessed a criminal act to them.
disorderly conduct by itself, no. but if they suspect the person organized or encouraged the disorderly conduct with unprotected speech (equivalent to yelling fire in a theater) over the twitter medium, then this sounds like a normal investigation.
Under the current standard, yelling fire in a crowded theater (clear and present danger) is not enough to unprotect speech, but rather that it has to incite to immediate lawless behavior. However, organizing a disorderly conduct mob would still qualify... this newer standard came as a result of many pacifists being charged with criminal speech acts when protesting wars.
My tweets are private if I say my tweets are private. If I do not allow non-friends to see them, it's the same as if I were having a private conversation with a friend of mine inside of my house.
And oftentimes your friend can be subpoenaed as to the contents of that communication.
But a bank cannot access your safe deposit box without you. So, they ensure that even when they hold anything for you that they construct a continued expectation of privacy with no right of the bank to violate that right without your consent.
Meanwhile, Twitter can access all your details and Tweets at will, and you grant them rights to redistribute at will... thus dismantling any argument of a right to privacy.
Indeed I can be subpoenaed to produce documents that another has given me, at least in some cases. The right to privacy was forfeit by sharing the material with a third party, and there is no intention that the documents could be used against me for criminal proceedings, so Twitter has no 4th amendment argument, and the third party who owns the document has no expectation of privacy.
Subpoenas are issued by the clerk of the court at the discretion of the attorneys involved.
Warrants are issued by judges.
They can also result in going to jail for civil contempt of court...
Thank you for clarifying TFA, as the summary failed to properly disclose all the details.
No. that will not make it difficult for Twitter. That will protect Twitter.
Complying with a warrant provides legal grounds for Twitter to act. Giving out information without one opens Twitter up to lawsuits.
Except a subpoena is already a court order, and grounds for Twitter to act. They're not just handing out information willy nilly...
answer the relevancy between someones private communications and a charge of disorderly conduct.
Tweets are rarely private communication, but rather a form of public address.
Kudos to Twitter and recognizing due process, but it is the least of our concerns here.
Except that a subpoena _IS_ due process...
That's fine. This is what due process is all about.
But a subpoena is also a part of due process... it's properly a court order compelling testimony of a witness... no, it's not a warrant, but they're not going to Twitter to search and seize, it's a court order demanding that Twitter produce the information requested as it is a necessary testimony to a legal proceeding.
In fact, this is the typical way to request information to obtain information about identity, etc from a 3rd party.
Namely, wtf is going on here, a subpoena is standard proper due process in this case, why is Twitter trying a very likely futile legal theory? ... Really, they could only properly quash the subpoena if they can show that the information that they hold is irrelevant to the court proceeding. Demanding a warrant means that law enforcement agents will come physically to their site, and find the information themselves, seizing necessary servers if required in order to search them off site. Would they really want to open themselves up to such an invasive search after the prosecution has submitted and received a proper and valid subpoena in accordance with due process already?
The legal theory is baffling my mind here...
"Re:I note every smartarse is using East Asian."
But I didn't use an East Asian word. In fact, I used a well-established word of Germanic origin, with unclear Proto-Indo-European connection.
Your notion that "Greek" is the central language of the Indo-European language tree is a bad example, because in fact, Greek is NOT the root language, and neither was it exclusively borrowed from. Yes, there are a great number of Greek words that have been pushed into English, and even more through Latin, by way of Old French. But in fact, the Germanic language tree exists quite distinct from the Greek language tree, and has a great number of words that developed in parallel and separately from each other.
But if you move to places that were highly developed in their language before the greeks and only really connected liberally after the greek language had solidified, then you'll find that, by definition, you cannot find a greek root to their word.
... let's see, there were the Albanian branch, the Anatolian branch, the Armenian branch, the Balto-Slavic (Baltic and Slavic) branch, the Celtic branch, the Germanic branch, the Indo-Iranian branch, the Italic branch, and the Tocharian branch... all of these were highly developed in their language before the Greeks and were only really connected liberally after the Greek language had solidified... wait, solidified? WTF? Ancient Greek is quite different from Modern Greek, and was part of a Sprachbund with a Baltic language, and a Slavic language, that ended up producing some odd hybrids of the three, with some parallel syntactic formations...
Seriously, are you talking ENTIRELY out of your ass? Because that's the only conclusion I can come to... because absolutely none of it is supported by linguistics.
I also find I get confused about ... which language I read it in.
Same happens to me. I've picked up quite a few languages to near-native level, and have thus memorized things at the concept level, and can therefore reproduce the conversation or what I read in either English or German as if I had read/heard it in that language itself.
Haha, Ok after reading your explanation of the joke two posts below, he'll yes THIS IS FUNNY :^)
Yeah, I didn't want to make the joke too obvious, but I think I ended up only making it too esoteric to be readily accessible. :(
Give me a word, any word, and I show you that the root of that word is Greek.
"Sword".